Intel Powerbook and iMac in January?

[generik]

Interesting, I'm running a PowerBook Pismo G3 500MHz with only 512MB of RAM and it does fine with a lot more running than that. 1GB is certainly better (my 2nd memory stick went south this summer) but 512MB does the job well enough that I haven't bothered replacing the dead memory.

It is truly queer... I really expect more horsepower from this machine.

On the other hand I also see a huge number of page ins and page outs in activity monitor, so I really hope ram is the issue, otherwise I am gonna be so stuffed to be stuck with this pokey CPU until Merom

 

[other]

Is it likely that something like WINE could run a few windows applications when the macs switch to intel? My dream would be to run foobar2000 in some way. Then I would finally be able to listen to and manage my music the way I want!

 

[mrrory]

It's all in the name...

Seems to me if they do release the iMac as the first Mac with an Intel chip, it's because they now want the "i" in iMac to stand for Intel. Could this be a marketing boon?

 

[weckart]

I don't foresee it being more compatible with Windows.

Why would there be windows drivers for something like.. airport?

http://ftp.us.dell.com/network/R81433.EXE


That is one of the numerous Dell drivers for their Truemobile miniPCI cards in their laptops. Same Broadcom chip as the Airport Express. Broadcom do not restrict their chips to Apple only.

 

[AidenShaw]

not difficult, but quite expensive

Yes, but once you've done the work of getting your software to run on Intel, it shouldn't be that difficult to also keep it running on PPC.

"keep it running" implies maintaining two QA teams (PPC/Intel) and doubling the testing for each release.... It requires training support for two versions....

The testing/QA/support costs for an application can be huge - and fat binaries require increased resources for these forever.

In a couple of years - you'll have as much luck finding PPC apps as you have finding 68K apps today. And your water-cooled PPC box will be selling for a couple of hundred on eBay....

 

[TorbX]

What do you know... My rev-A 12" PowerBook IS pretty mature. Guess I'll climb the performance-ladder sooner than I thought. Not this januar, though. From the day pb 12" rev-B arrived, I've been a rev-B kinda-guy. My next purchase is going to be rev-B, for sure.

Not sure why, though. Guess it is psychological. I'm sure Apple wouldn't roll anything out that does not perform as intended. My current PB still works grrrreat. I type my assignments on it every day.

Rev-B it is. Or going to be. Or, to be honest, a rev-C is also in sight. Wether it will be B or C depends on my economy at the time!

But what do you care...

 

[Seasought]

I'd like to see new 'intel' powerbooks release in Jan.

 

[TorbX]

If Microsoft doesn't do it, someone will, because where there's demand there will be supply.

So where is Messenger 7.x with widgets, webcam, voice...?

 

[ksz]

Dual booting is a NICE feature I'm looking forward to. I do some system-level programming and to be able to do dual boot I can FINALLY be able to do so without using VPC for mac ( way too slow and quite the resource hog! )

Dual booting will become a thing of the past if Apple implements support for Virtualization Technology in Leopard. VT allows your processor and subsystems to be logically partitioned into two or more virtual machines, each capable of running a separate operating system simultaneously. This allows you, for example, to have Windows XP on one monitor and Mac OS on another monitor (dual monitor) running at the same time. If you have only one monitor, you can hot-switch between operating systems (or more technically, between virtual machines).

Virtual machines are not just for multiple operating systems, however. You can also start up Mac OS X, for example, split that into two or more virtual machines, and run different applications on different VMs for isolation or security or other reasons. It can also be used for load-balancing in which a virtual machine can be transferred from one processor to another processor (or from one core to another core).

Virtualization will be coming in Merom and Conroe in the 2nd half of 2006 in the form of Intel Virtualization Technology (IVT). Here's a Linux implementation of IVT.

 

[kiwi-in-uk]

Dual booting will become a thing of the past if Apple implements support for Virtualization Technology in Leopard. VT allows your processor and subsystems to be logically partitioned into two or more virtual machines, each capable of running a separate operating system simultaneously.

Plus ça change (plus c'est la même chose) ...

IBM VM ... NCR VRX ... others ...?

We've come a long way ...

 

[ksz]

Plus ça change (plus c'est la même chose) ...

IBM VM ... NCR VRX ... others ...?

We've come a long way ...

You should get your head out of the toilet bowl of sarcasm! (j/k)

VT is not new, but VT is new to the consumer desktop and laptop. Intel has trickled down this technology from Itanium. It will only be available on dual and multi core processors as a logical evolution.

Got it?

Here's an article on VT for desktops.

 

[AidenShaw]

Please, it's "VT", not "IVT"

Dual booting will become a thing of the past if Apple implements support for Virtualization Technology in Leopard. VT allows your processor and subsystems to be logically partitioned into two or more virtual machines....

Please, use the acronym "VT" like Intel and the rest of the industry uses... Actually, the "rest of the industry" usually says "VT/Pacifica" when referring to the x64 silicon-assisted virtualization. (When you type "VT" to the wikipedia, you don't get http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IVT)

Yonah will support VT as well.

Apple's biggest problem with VT will be the DRM to lock OSx86 to Apple-built machines. Once they allow VT/Pacifica enabled virtual machines, it becomes very interesting as to how they can maintain the node lock - since the DRM itself will be virtualized by the hardware. The virtualization layer could be hacked to present an "Apple box" to the OSx86 VM, even when running on a Dell.

 

[ksz]

Please, use the acronym "VT" like Intel and the rest of the industry uses... Actually, the "rest of the industry" usually says "VT/Pacifica" when referring to the x64 silicon-assisted virtualization. (When you type "VT" to the wikipedia, you don't get http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IVT)

Intel's implementation is called IVT; Xen provides Linux support for IVT.

Yonah will support VT as well.

Are you sure? There has been some confusion whether or not Yonah will get IVT despite the excerpt below.

Apple's biggest problem with VT will be the DRM to lock OSx86 to Apple-built machines. Once they allow VT/Pacifica enabled virtual machines, it becomes very interesting as to how they can maintain the node lock - since the DRM itself will be virtualized by the hardware. The virtualization layer could be hacked to present an "Apple box" to the OSx86 VM, even when running on a Dell.

I don't think Apple can ignore IVT. A solution to the node lock problem does not seem to be difficult to develop. Mac OS will only boot or operate on hardware containing Apple firmware. It's not clear to me how VT could bypass this.

Excerpt from Computer Express Online:

Both Intel and AMD are betting big on this. The recently-announced release plans for AMD’s Pacifica technology advance the industry-wide trend towards hardware virtualisation—a trend that Gartner believes will transform the way PCs are used more than any other development in this decade did. Virtualisation on x86 platforms will clear the way for a new class of innovations, making the platform more flexible, manageable and secure. Similarly, Intel announced Vanderpool—Intel Virtualisation Technology (IVT)—that will start appearing in the company’s desktop and 64-bit Itanium chips (Montecito) later in 2005 and next year in its Xeon server and mobile processors (Yonah).

 

[AidenShaw]

Intel's implementation is called IVT; Xen provides Linux support for IVT

Try googling for "IVT site:intel.com" and "IVT site:xensource.com", or read http://www.xensource.com/files/Xen_VT_Intel_SSaxena.pdf, and then come back and try to claim that the name is "IVT".

The Intel search will tell you the IVT is the "Interrupt Vector Table", part of VT.

In the Xensource search (and by the way, "VT" is seen 2 times on the home page at http://www.xensource.com) will get lots of hits on the source modules for the Interrupt Vector Table, and a few email lists where random users have said IVT instead of VT.

BTW, you might want to check out slide 13 of that PDF file for info about Yonah (see thumb).

 

[ksz]

Try googling for "IVT site:intel.com" and "IVT site:xensource.com", or read http://www.xensource.com/files/Xen_VT_Intel_SSaxena.pdf, and then come back and try to claim that the name is "IVT".

The Intel search will tell you the IVT is the "Interrupt Vector Table", part of VT.

In the Xensource search (and by the way, "VT" is seen 2 times on the home page at http://www.xensource.com) will get lots of hits on the source modules for the Interrupt Vector Table, and a few email lists where random users have said IVT instead of VT.

AidenShaw,

Why is this such an issue for you? It seems you were unable to Google for IVT and become frustrated. Look at the last page of this PDF I referenced previously:

http://www.dell.com/downloads/global/power/ps3q05-20050191-Abels.pdf

They use the abbreviation IVT at least 3 or 4 times to refer to Intel Virtualization Technology.

BTW, you might want to check out slide 13 of that PDF file for info about Yonah (see thumb).

Good information. If this is from the last IDF then it seems Yonah will in fact support IVT (or VT if it makes you happy!).

P.S. Seach Google for "Intel IVT" and see what happens.

 

[generik]

Dual booting will become a thing of the past if Apple implements support for Virtualization Technology in Leopard. VT allows your processor and subsystems to be logically partitioned into two or more virtual machines, each capable of running a separate operating system simultaneously. This allows you, for example, to have Windows XP on one monitor and Mac OS on another monitor (dual monitor) running at the same time. If you have only one monitor, you can hot-switch between operating systems (or more technically, between virtual machines).

Virtual machines are not just for multiple operating systems, however. You can also start up Mac OS X, for example, split that into two or more virtual machines, and run different applications on different VMs for isolation or security or other reasons. It can also be used for load-balancing in which a virtual machine can be transferred from one processor to another processor (or from one core to another core).

Virtualization will be coming in Merom and Conroe in the 2nd half of 2006 in the form of Intel Virtualization Technology (IVT). Here's a Linux implementation of IVT.

I believe it is coming with the higher Yonah processors too, nevertheless that is the one feature that makes me excited about the Intel switch.

 

[AidenShaw]

Why is this such an issue for you? It seems you were unable to Google for IVT and become frustrated.

There's one good name for the technology, used by the creator and the major consumers.

Why confuse the issue by inventing a new acronym - isn't one enough?

Look at the last page of this PDF I referenced previously:

http://www.dell.com/downloads/global/power/ps3q05-20050191-Abels.pdf

So Tim is careless with his usage, we shouldn't parrot him.

P.S. Seach Google for "Intel IVT" and see what happens.

I see that it means "Intel Video Technology" - how 'bout that?

Search for IVT at site:intel.com, site:vmware.com and site:xensource.com - not much comes back....

If you search google for "irridescent", you get 254K hits. Does the fact that 254K people misspelled "iridescent" mean that we should "fix" the dictionary? If a few people type IVT, does that make it correct?

(For the "google vote" crowd, "vt pacifica" gets 744K hits, "ivt pacifica" gets 336. Clearly google votes for "VT", not "IVT".)

I'd think the fact that IVT doesn't show up at Intel, Xen or VMware should be a clue.

 

[Frobozz]

A major problem with the MacIntel machines is they will not run Classic applications. There a lot of users with gigabytes of data only accessible through Classic applications. There are no upgrades for this legacy software. That makes the MacIntel's useless for many businesses who have years and even decades invested in their data. Apple is making a horrible mistake to abandon Classic.

I disagree. If Apple took that stance (writing a new version of a 5+ year old OS to run even older unsupported software) we'd end up with crap like Windows. Microsoft has always taken the stance, right up until Vista, that backwards compatability was more important than ease of use, stability, security, etc.

I'm not saying that Classic is not an important feature for some people, but they're a pretty small niche, even if you clearly fall into that group. The PowerMac will be around as a PowerPC for a long time to come ... probably at least another revision. That has plenty of horsepower to keep all those obsolete Classic apps running.

 

[pubwvj]

It is truly queer... I really expect more horsepower from this machine. On the other hand I also see a huge number of page ins and page outs in activity monitor, so I really hope ram is the issue, otherwise I am gonna be so stuffed to be stuck with this pokey CPU until Merom

How much free space do you have on your hard drive? I find that if the hard disk free space gets under two megabytes then performance suffers badly. I upgraded from a 48MB to an 80MB hard drive to solve that problem. Go with the fastest (e.g., 7200 rpm) drive you can get. I notice my 7200 rpm drives make my whole system seem much faster than when I use a 5400 rpm drive for my system boot disk. 4200 rpm ones are dog slow. (Now that is a funny phrase, my dogs are faaaassst - they dog sled! )

 

[ksz]

There's one good name for the technology, used by the creator and the major consumers.

Why confuse the issue by inventing a new acronym - isn't one enough?

VT is a generic term. IVT refers to Intel's version. This is why you see it mentioned many times by many people. I see nothing wrong with this. It's perfectly okay to have more than one abbreviation.

So Tim is careless with his usage, we shouldn't parrot him.

It does not bother me. Seems it does bother you though.

I see that it means "Intel Video Technology" - how 'bout that?

And VT itself could mean many things. Every abbreviation has multiple definitions.

Search for IVT at site:intel.com, site:vmware.com and site:xensource.com - not much comes back....

Search for Vanderpool.

If you search google for "irridescent", you get 254K hits. Does the fact that 254K people misspelled "iridescent" mean that we should "fix" the dictionary? If a few people type IVT, does that make it correct?

IVT has been used already and I suspect it will grow in usage as it becomes adopted in desktop and laptop systems. Nothing wrong with IVT. I think using the term VT is too generic. One should use "Vanderpool/Pacifica" instead, but it doesn't bother me.

(For the "google vote" crowd, "vt pacifica" gets 744K hits, "ivt pacifica" gets 336. Clearly google votes for "VT", not "IVT".)

I'd think the fact that IVT doesn't show up at Intel, Xen or VMware should be a clue.

This is not adding to the discussion and is becoming a distraction. I suggest we drop this. Cheers.

 

[ksz]

I believe it is coming with the higher Yonah processors too, nevertheless that is the one feature that makes me excited about the Intel switch.

Agreed. Virtualization has many possibilities and could bring about new ways of using personal computers because they are rapidly gaining server-like sophistication. It's far more worthwhile to consider these possibilities than to argue over nomenclature.

 

[AidenShaw]

soon, everything will be a VM

Agreed. Virtualization has many possibilities and could bring about new ways of using personal computers because they are rapidly gaining server-like sophistication. It's far more worthwhile to consider these possibilities than to argue over nomenclature.

One of the interesting things in Vista Server relating to VT is the concept of "roles".

If you need to run a web server, instead of running the web server on your system and opening up the necessary ports - you'd create a "web server" VM with the "web server role".

The web server would run in the VM, not in your main machine. In the event of a security issue with the web server, only the web VM would be at risk.

VT/Pacifica will enable new paradigms for "security-in-depth", by making it easy and efficient to run specially tailored VMs for various tasks, rather than the "kitchen sink" approach of running and opening every potentially needed feature on a single system.

You won't have a "main system" hosting the VMs, everything that you do will be in a VM tuned for that role. The VT/Pacifica layer will be part of a hypervisor orchestrating the various VMs.

Linux and Windows have a huge head start in this new world - Apple will have a lot of "catch-up" to do, especially since they'll need to fit their restrictive DRM into the VT/Pacifica model. (And, IMO, if Apple doesn't run within a VMware, Xen or Virtual Server VM environment they'll cut themselves out of a lucrative market.)

 

[ksz]

Linux and Windows have a huge head start in this new world - Apple will have a lot of "catch-up" to do, especially since they'll need to fit their restrictive DRM into the VT/Pacifica model. (And, IMO, if Apple doesn't run within a VMware, Xen or Virtual Server VM environment they'll cut themselves out of a lucrative market.)

It seems someone has found a way to install OSX86 on a Toshiba laptop, bypassing DRM. Seems your concern was valid.

 

[xrayzed]

Dual booting will become a thing of the past if Apple implements support for Virtualization Technology in Leopard. VT allows your processor and subsystems to be logically partitioned into two or more virtual machines, each capable of running a separate operating system simultaneously.

I'm not familiar with the technology, so I don't care if it's called VT, IVT, IVF, IOOF, or any other acronym - I'd just love to have the capacity.

I have work apps that only work under Windows. Being able to run them simultaneously with my Mac would be brilliant.

 

[zim]

This is good news! This also gives me the push to update my system now vs. waiting longer. My plan is to replace my current set up with the last or near to the end of life G5 processor, I run on an iMac. My logic is that after I upgrade it will be at least a year or so before Adobe etc.. catch up and release new versions that are intel native. I would love to have the first intel processor based mac but I am concerned with speed and currently am happy with the performance on an iMac with 2GB or RAM (I have a G4 20" iMac at home).