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.
Intel's 2006 Processor Roadmap
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
GilGrissom
macrumors 65816
OS X can connect to a Windows Domain but has no pure file encryption or GUI-based remote desktop functionality. On either platform you can get free third-party software to allow for that functionality but that's not the point. Most people, including many people here don't need the extra features that Pro offers over Home edition.
I have yet to run into any home user that cares for Pro edition but many college students need Pro to connect to their schools domain. Luckily Microsoft said all versions of Vista will have that ability.
GilGrissom
macrumors 65816
Thought so.BGil said:
No I know, neither have I, that are pure normal home users. That wasn't my point. I was speaking about me. Most normal home users will buy a PC from PC World (or US equivalent) and use whatever is on there, which is Home, as you say, (or Media Centre edition, which is growing in popularity and frequency I have noticed). I start Uni this September so will be connecting to the domain. My Windows laptop is Home, as are all my home Windows machines, but I still prefer Pro, doesn't mean I'll get it or any other normal home user would for use at home.BGil said:
Really? Thought pricing was (a supposed!) part of the reason to switch. Oh, learn something new everyday! Thanks.akac said:
Gil_Grissom said:
What are you arguing? Are we even arguing? 🙁
All I'm saying is that most people don't need Pro Edition to make their computer usable, to the contrary of the original poster.
GilGrissom
macrumors 65816
No we're not. My appologies. 🙁 😱 I understand. Hopefully readers will be able to decipher it all! 😱BGil said:
I think we both had the same point somewhere in there!
I'll go stand in the corner now...
shamino
macrumors 68040
Even though all the software shipping today requires more?BGil said:
Go and buy any modern program in a store today and see if it can run well on the PC you bought three years ago. I'll guanratee that it won't work well without an upgrade, if you haven't already upgraded the computer.
This is simply not the case with Mac software. Unless you run professional apps (like Motion), the harware sold years ago can run everything sold today without problem.
Ah yes, so now we get on to insults and abuse. Since you can't concede this point, you start claiming that it doesn't matter.BGil said:
The fact is that all of the cheap PC's have shared-memory video, which cripples both video and application performance. And all Macs include real video chips with separate memory. You claim that this doesn't matter. Well congratulations. Those of us who care about what we buy know the difference and wouldn't be caught dead with the junk that the cheap PC's come with.
More insults and abuse. Maybe you haven't heard but tons of people today do something called teleworking. Which means remote desktops, connecting to domains, encryption, user logins, and a security model that wasn't sneezed out of a sick gorilla.BGil said:
Not at all true. I already explained why. You responded by changing the subject and getting abusive.BGil said:
It remains true that a PC, if equipped to match a Mac's hardware and software features, will cost much more.
Your response of "you don't need those features" is irrelevant and insulting.
shamino said:
What do you think people are running on the PC side that requires more than a 2.8 ghz P4? The mid-range PC I bought 3 years ago was a 2.26ghz P4 and it still runs anything I can buy off the shelf just fine. The only thing I can think of that might require an update is memory, 256meg was typical then (I had 768), but then that was base on some Apples up until a month or so ago and we all know how well OSX runs on just 256meg, glass houses/stones, you know the rest.
The Mac I bought 3 1/2 years ago is a dual 800. It's painfully slow these days in comparison to the 2.26 P4 and certainly doesn't run modern software any better than a 3 year old PC. If it hadn't assumed fileserver duties, it would probably be gone by now.
I finally just upgraded my mother a few months ago from an 8 year old machine because it wouldn't run stuff off the store shelf well, though it did run. 8 years I can buy, 3 years, no. BTW, we upgraded her to a Dell 2.8ghz P4 with integrated video. Dirt cheap, runs great. I wouldn't pick it for professional audio and video production, but for office automation stuff, business apps, mom stuff, even burning the occasional DVD, it's perfect. I suspect it will be so for the next 8 years.
Intel systems are cheaper.
A 'bleeding edge' Dell is priced $100 lower than a basic Power Mac.
Twice the system RAM, twice the video RAM.
3.0 Ghz Dual-Core/64bit.
Plenty of upgrades left before reaching $2999.
And the 'white box', I'm sitting right in front of, has smaller dimensions than a Power Mac.
It has a full sized ATX board, with plenty of empty space.
So a miniATX would easily fit into a modified Power Mac enclosure.
Redesigning the case shouldn't be that hard for apple to manage.
A 'bleeding edge' Dell is priced $100 lower than a basic Power Mac.
Twice the system RAM, twice the video RAM.
3.0 Ghz Dual-Core/64bit.
Plenty of upgrades left before reaching $2999.
And the 'white box', I'm sitting right in front of, has smaller dimensions than a Power Mac.
It has a full sized ATX board, with plenty of empty space.
So a miniATX would easily fit into a modified Power Mac enclosure.
Redesigning the case shouldn't be that hard for apple to manage.
stubeeef
macrumors 68030
Just upgraded my mom from an original 233 G3 BondiBlue iMac to an eMac (649 refurb) that is pretty darn quick for $649. Her iMac was plenty good for years, but she wanted to go digital with her camera and now I have all her music on it too. She never has to update and run anti virus software (or buy it and pay for a subscription) nor buy and update and run ad aware and the like. It just works. Apples are not the solution for everyone, just my entire family.
My 2 brother in laws that used to give me crap about apple, are now buying them. Cheap hardware and a crappy OS is no bargain.
My 2 brother in laws that used to give me crap about apple, are now buying them. Cheap hardware and a crappy OS is no bargain.
stubeeef said:
If all you do with a PC is listen to music, share photos, and surf the web, then you don't need a high-end system.
'Apples are not the solutions for everyone, just my entire family.'
That's a corny statement.
Didn't need the 'just my entire family' part.
We get it.
'Just because'.
Yeah, yeah.
shamino
macrumors 68040
It's still only one processor.willyjsimmons said:
Go locate the cheapest dual processor system from Dell. You'll have to buy a $5000 server in order to get one. And it will have the cheapest video and sound systems, because nobody does multimedia work on servers.
You're comparing apples and oranges here.
Why not compare one of those systems against a single-CPU Mac, like an iMac?
And as I wrote several times, be sure to add all the options needed to match the software bundle. Don't forget about all the server apps that come with Mac OS X, and the iLife suite. Good luck matching that bundle for under $1000, if you can find comparable programs at all.
You still seem to think that the average computer owner is interesting in swapping motherboards and building new systems from the leftover parts.willyjsimmons said:
This is something that almost nobody does. Hobbiests, such as yourself, are a very small mnority of any company's customer base. Demanding that an entire product line be customized such that you can take it apart is just plain silly.
And I have no idea why you are so bent on trying to make me agree. Do you think Apple takes orders from me or something?
shamino
macrumors 68040
But you do.willyjsimmons said:
Once you load up your PC with all the anti-virus/anti-spyware/firewall tools you need to avoid being "0wned" the minute you go on-line, you've lost over 100M of memory, a lot of your CPU power, and a lot of the bandwidth to your disk.
The shared-memory video subsystem makes it even worse - taking away another 64M (or more) of your RAM.
So you need a system with much more power in order to simply break even.
shamino
macrumors 68040
We'll see what they actually end up shipping.AidenShaw said:
The PowerMac line has always had separate AGP video. I'm sure the forthcoming MacTel system will be no different.
Since there are no Intel Macs with other video cards, there is no way you can say a thing about how this chip compares to real video hardware. Comparisons against PPC-based systems are meaningless, because there are a zillion other differences.AidenShaw said:
My point remains, that video systems with shared memory are crippled. You give up tons of main memory (64M and up) to the chip, and all your video activity has to share the same memory bus as the rest of the system.
If this Intel chip performs well, wonderful. It is still crippled compared to what it would be capable of if installed on an AGP card with its own dediated memory.
Not trying to convince anyone.
Not trying to change anyones mind about anything, per se.
And a single dual-core processor is basically two processors.
I'm talking about one system, the Power Mac, using a standard Intel board.
It was just my 2 cents.
Like I've already stated.
People have already said that they're content with Apples current pricing and upgrade structure.
Which is fine and dandy for them.
And I don't use the onboard video.
FYI, the newest Intel boards, the 9xx series, switches to PCIx based video, dynamic memory allocation up to 128MB, which is perfectly fine for regular business users and most home users. Just fine for games like the sims2 etc.
And a 128MB video card, costs like 40-60 bucks if you need serious 3D capability.
Anything less than a 1GB of system RAM, is just uncivilized.
Even without running anti-virus, firewall, or whatever.
'Symantec said that over the past year, it had documented 37 high-vulnerabilities -- weaknesses that leave the system open to malicious software attacks -- in Mac OS X. They "have been confirmed by the vendor, which, in the Apple case, almost always means that the company has released a patch."'
"All these platforms have vulnerabilities -- it's a fact of life," said Gartner analyst Martin Reynolds. "The truth of the matter is that Mac is only a couple percentage points of (computer) shipments, so it's not an interesting target."
shamino said:
Not trying to change anyones mind about anything, per se.
And a single dual-core processor is basically two processors.
I'm talking about one system, the Power Mac, using a standard Intel board.
It was just my 2 cents.
Like I've already stated.
People have already said that they're content with Apples current pricing and upgrade structure.
Which is fine and dandy for them.
And I don't use the onboard video.
FYI, the newest Intel boards, the 9xx series, switches to PCIx based video, dynamic memory allocation up to 128MB, which is perfectly fine for regular business users and most home users. Just fine for games like the sims2 etc.
And a 128MB video card, costs like 40-60 bucks if you need serious 3D capability.
Anything less than a 1GB of system RAM, is just uncivilized.
Even without running anti-virus, firewall, or whatever.
'Symantec said that over the past year, it had documented 37 high-vulnerabilities -- weaknesses that leave the system open to malicious software attacks -- in Mac OS X. They "have been confirmed by the vendor, which, in the Apple case, almost always means that the company has released a patch."'
"All these platforms have vulnerabilities -- it's a fact of life," said Gartner analyst Martin Reynolds. "The truth of the matter is that Mac is only a couple percentage points of (computer) shipments, so it's not an interesting target."
~Shard~
macrumors P6
willyjsimmons said:
Not entirely true - they very nature of Mac OS X being UNIX/FreeBSD makes it inherently more secure. Whether it had a higher marketshare or not, this would still remain the case. Yes, it isn't an interesting target, and yes, there are still vulnerablilties, but don't don't downplay the security of UNIX - it is still an important factor to consider.
AidenShaw
macrumors P6
Dual Core is the same as dual processor
There's virtually no difference in performance between a dual-core chip and two single-core chips of the same frequency.
Your argument is based on a fallacy - the iMac has one processor, the cheap Dell has two processors, the PowerMac also has two processors.
I can't wait for Apple to start selling dual-core Intel systems, so that these silly statements disappear. 😱
A dual-core chip contains two complete processors on one chip package (usually, but not necessarily, one piece of silicon).shamino said:
There's virtually no difference in performance between a dual-core chip and two single-core chips of the same frequency.
Your argument is based on a fallacy - the iMac has one processor, the cheap Dell has two processors, the PowerMac also has two processors.
I can't wait for Apple to start selling dual-core Intel systems, so that these silly statements disappear. 😱
AidenShaw
macrumors P6
My point is that "crippled" is too strong, too loaded a term for what is basically cost-effective graphics for entry to mid-level systems. Not great for gaming, but very good performance for most people, at a great price. Not very many people need extreme 3D cards.shamino said:
You also stretch the typical case - 64 MiB is an extreme case for shared graphics, the average user would see far less. In fact, on several 845G systems here the graphics is only using 8MiB.
And, sharing the 533 to 667 MHz DDR2 bus isn't such a horrible thing. Sharing a 142 MHz bus wouldn't be so great....
As far as comparing the MacIntel shared graphics with the PowerMac - I think that it is a significant point that the shared graphics outperformed the dual 2.5 GHz. It's hard to use a word as strong as "crippled" with facts like that available.
'And a single dual-core processor is basically two processors.'
Pay attention to the semantics.
I said basically.
Basically.
Basically != exactly.
And for the sake of arguement.
A dual processor Dell costs $2,603. And that's with Xeon processors.
Of course Xeon's are pricey little beasts.
FYI, the most expensive system I've ever built, was a dual processor system with an $800 video card, that was still under $3000.
Pay attention to the semantics.
I said basically.
Basically.
Basically != exactly.
And for the sake of arguement.
A dual processor Dell costs $2,603. And that's with Xeon processors.
Of course Xeon's are pricey little beasts.
FYI, the most expensive system I've ever built, was a dual processor system with an $800 video card, that was still under $3000.
AidenShaw
macrumors P6
I agree to disagree on this one...akac said:
Don't look too closely at what you call dual processors - you'll find that they're sharing a lot of stuff as well.akac said:
The G5 may have independent busses to the Northbridge - but the memory controller itself is still shared (and much slower than the independent busses).
Intel uses a shared bus in all configurations, so there is no difference between dual-core and dual single-core in this regard.
You might want to chcck out some facts here. Look at http://www.spec.org/cpu2000/results/rint2000.html - HP was nice enough to submit separate scores for single and dual core runs of the same system. Look at the "Proliant DL385" with the Opteron 275 - a dual chip (quad core) server.akac said:
Code:
SPECrate Int2000 Cores enabled GHz
17.0 1 2.2 (dual core)
18.1 1 2.6 (single core)
32.8 2 2.2 (dual core)
36.1 2 2.6 (2 * single core)
65.2 4 2.2 (2 * dual core)Can you show us a link to your statistics for 30% improvement, where dual core is compared to dual processor in a controlled experiment?
Well.
Any time you have open ports on your system, you're vulnerable.
Jerks who know what they're doing, can exploit any software package with a buffer overflow problem.
From looking at the list of packages that have just been updated for OS X, you better believe there was an DoS or security (OpenSSL) exploit somewhere.
You'd have to look at the changelogs for those packages to get specific.
It's all a matter of probablility.
Now, the issue of 'system bloat' with windows systems, and the need for additional security measures, is something that can be dealt with at the harware and kernel level.
The NT kernel is a dog, relatively speaking.
But that's a whole other issue and has nothing to do with shared video memory.
~Shard~ said:
Any time you have open ports on your system, you're vulnerable.
Jerks who know what they're doing, can exploit any software package with a buffer overflow problem.
From looking at the list of packages that have just been updated for OS X, you better believe there was an DoS or security (OpenSSL) exploit somewhere.
You'd have to look at the changelogs for those packages to get specific.
It's all a matter of probablility.
Now, the issue of 'system bloat' with windows systems, and the need for additional security measures, is something that can be dealt with at the harware and kernel level.
The NT kernel is a dog, relatively speaking.
But that's a whole other issue and has nothing to do with shared video memory.