Intel's Napa Platform with Yonah

[toneloco2881]

yeah thats why I want a G5 in the powerbook.

You remind me of those people that like to be contrary for the sake of being err.....contrary? Your favorite band suddenly gets a video on MTV, and now their the worst band in existence. Your secret television show now gets a nod for an emmy, and their writers have all fell off. Just like people who hate the iPod blindly, just because it's popular! Admittedly, talent and "commercial" sucess are more often than not mutually exclusive terms, but sometimes the two do align.

Get off this David vs. Goliath BS, and think with your brain. The ppc architecture insofar as computers is dead. The manufacturers themselves have said as much. Intel is the best decision Apple has made in a long time, ,and I think they know this also. They probably wanted to switch at the advent of OS X and subsequently the g5, but figured it would be too much of a hassle. Once transitive(rosetta) technology came along, it was only a matter of time. Think different doesn't mean you ALWAYS have to go left when everyone else goes right.

 

[digitalbiker]

If that's the case, then Apple was planning the switch to x86 this whole time.

I think this may be closer to the truth than SJ cares to admit! Remember Next systems were x86 and Steve and the Intel CEO are very, very good friends.

I agree with backdraft that IBM is more than capable of producing Power4 and Power5 laptop chip versions (G5 & G6). The only thing that held back the progress was money.

Apple's market share is not enough for IBM to make the bucks neccessary to reinvest in product improvement. Therefore IBM wanted bucks directly from Apple. Steve didn't want to pay. IBM found another market (Game Consoles) and Steve gave the contract to one of his best friends company.

The mhz / watt calculation is a ruse! Give me a break!

Do you actually believe that the oversized, complicated mass of transistors that makes up the ancient x86 standard at 65 nm. would be more efficient than if Apple had payed the best minds at IBM ( The Foremost computer chip design company in the world) to move the Power4 (G5) chip to a 65 nm Low-voltage, laptop design.

 

[digitalbiker]

Where the Pentium-M Windows laptops score well though is in graphics performance and in particular OpenGL. And that says more about Apple's slow OpenGL implementation than the processor. I'd be surprised if that changes with a MacIntel so expect us to still lose miserably in Cinebench. Dissing Windows performance is going to come back and haunt us if given the same hardware Windows is faster.

I agree with you. I think way too many people are assuming that Windows is a slow, clug, holding back the Pentium-M. They may be REAL surprized when they see OS X on the exact same hardware.

Apple's implementation of OpenGL is pathetic and their choice of using the Mach 3 microkernel was also a performance mistake. Linus Torvals (sp?) had a great article about all the short comings of the Mach 3 microkernel and how Apple would have performance issues going into the future.

 

[Peace]

They may be REAL surprized when they see OS X on the exact same hardware.

Man that is such a generalization..

People will rarely see OSX and Windows on "the exact same hardware" making it very hard to compare and dangerously inaccurate.

 

[SiliconAddict]

Hyperbole....

Grab the free antispyware tool from MS (http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/...2-6a57-4c57-a8bd-dbf62eda9671&displaylang=en), and spyware be gone.

Umm bullcrap. I work in an office of 170ish systems. I know spyware intimately and I can tell you with complete and total authority that with the holy trinity installed: MS antispyware, spybot: search and destroy, and adware it doesn't catch all of the various versions out there and in some cases makes things worse after removing it. Think of spyware on Windows like cancer.
-If you don't get all of it it will come back to bit you.
-Even if you rid the patient of cancer they sometimes are never the same again.

 

[MacTruck]

I agree, it would make the most sense to have iBooks single-core and PowerBooks dual-core. (assuming both lines will still be called iBooks and PowerBooks after they go Intel)

Pretty ironic that the name POWERBOOK would change once they finally get some power.

 

[digitalbiker]

Man that is such a generalization..

People will rarely see OSX and Windows on "the exact same hardware" making it very hard to compare and dangerously inaccurate.

I guess I don't understand what you are talking about? Aren't we talking about OS X on x86?

It will be easy to get benchmarks on the same hardware.

Step 1) Run benchmark tests on OSX

Step 2) Reboot into XP and/or Vista

Step 3) Run benchmark tests on Windows.

 

[MacTruck]

I guess I don't understand what you are talking about? Aren't we talking about OS X on x86?

It will be easy to get benchmarks on the same hardware.

Step 1) Run benchmark tests on OSX

Step 2) Reboot into XP and/or Vista

Step 3) Run benchmark tests on Windows.

Does it really matter what the benchmarks are on windows? I mean if its faster on windows it won't be much and if it is faster are you really going to stop using osx and move to windows? I certainly would not, thats why I am still using my G4 powerbook and my 2ghz centrino thinkpad is collecting dust.

 

[Peace]

I guess I don't understand what you are talking about? Aren't we talking about OS X on x86?

It will be easy to get benchmarks on the same hardware.

Step 1) Run benchmark tests on OSX

Step 2) Reboot into XP and/or Vista

Step 3) Run benchmark tests on Windows.

Ahh...Gotcha! sorry..I didn't think about the dual-boot scenerio..

What folks will need is a benchmark tool that is truly universal.XBench right now is way off the mark in some things..

 

[SiliconAddict]

Man that is such a generalization..

People will rarely see OSX and Windows on "the exact same hardware" making it very hard to compare and dangerously inaccurate.

Hehe. Don't bet on it. The day the first Macintel hardware is released expect ever computer site (zdnet, cnet, arstechnica, pc magazine, computer world, anandtech, etc.) on the planet to order one and start doing benchmarks of Windows vs. OS X. You thought the Mac vs. PC wars were bad before when the two lived across town. Wait until they are next-door neighbors. No matter who comes out in first place there is going to be the rough equivalent of a nuclear war of words on both sides. FYI get ready for a MASSIVE amount of trolling on Macrumors. Personally I’m scared *continues to build his bunker*

PS- Heck even I'm going to setup a dual boot scenario on my future PowerBook. Streets and Trips, a few proprietary company apps, MS Access, IE (*kicks the proprietary company website) necessitates it. So I wouldn’t say rarely. I fully expect to see Mac users throwing up in the streets as they start to see Windows XP and Vista running on computers with an Apple logo. Brace yourself folks. Stock up on pepto bismol NOW. Its going to be in short supply in 2006.

 

[tristan]

I agree that cross-platform OSX/Windows benchmarks will be all over the place, but they'll basically be meaningless. The feature sets and related overhead of the OSs are so different. One OS might save a file 38% faster than the other, while the other does a screen redraw 19% faster. So what? The only way to get a real comparison would be to use the application you want to use in the specific way you want to use it on both systems and then compare.

 

[Randall]

IBM ( The Foremost computer chip design company in the world)

That may have been true a long time ago. I don't think it's the case anymore.

 

[digitalbiker]

Does it really matter what the benchmarks are on windows? I mean if its faster on windows it won't be much and if it is faster are you really going to stop using osx and move to windows? I certainly would not, thats why I am still using my G4 powerbook and my 2ghz centrino thinkpad is collecting dust.

I understand what you are saying but what about from the developers point of view?

Lets say benchmarks show that Adobe products run 20% faster under windows than under OS X (an exageration for effect).

Why would Adobe want to spend the extra money, time, and effort to make, test, and market an OS X native version when they can just tell users to use VPC, WINE, or dual boot into windows and run their software better?

Plus, why give more fuel to the fire for the Windows users to have another good reason to use Windows rather than switch to OS X?

 

[Randall]

Man that is such a generalization..

People will rarely see OSX and Windows on "the exact same hardware" making it very hard to compare and dangerously inaccurate.

I'm thinking he ment the same architecture, but you're right, that's way too much of a generalization.

Pretty ironic that the name POWERBOOK would change once they finally get some power.

It won't.

 

[SiliconAddict]

I mean if its faster on windows it won't be much and if it is faster are you really going to stop using osx and move to windows?

*dawns a Microsoft fanboi tee-shirt and starts talking in a high pitched whinny voice* But it will prove that Microsoft Windows is superior to OS X and the communist open source software blows. See right there is the proof! Right there....crap.....*runs the anti-spyware scanner*.... see right there! Microsoft brings stability to the computing world with its vastly superior Windows XP OS.

*Removes the tee shirt, burns it, and goes and takes a shower* I scrub and scrub but I still feel dirty.

 

[SiliconAddict]

I agree that cross-platform OSX/Windows benchmarks will be all over the place, but they'll basically be meaningless. The feature sets and related overhead of the OSs are so different. One OS might save a file 38% faster than the other, while the other does a screen redraw 19% faster. So what? The only way to get a real comparison would be to use the application you want to use in the specific way you want to use it on both systems and then compare.

Yah http://www.xvsxp.com/ is going to have their work cut out for them on re-evaluating the platforms. Granted most of their stuff is GUI based and based on the OS's behavior not speed.
I think at the end of the day its going to be like comparing hardware specs on console machines. One system may have a better CPU, another may have a better GPU, someone may have a DVD drive, another has a Blue-ray drive, another has 802.11B, another has 802.11G. At the end of the day its going to be a moot point. Anyways just like consoles its the software dummy.

 

[Peace]

Hehe. Don't bet on it. The day the first Macintel hardware is released expect ever computer site (zdnet, cnet, arstechnica, pc magazine, computer world, anandtech, etc.) on the planet to order one and start doing benchmarks of Windows vs. OS X. You thought the Mac vs. PC wars were bad before when the two lived across town. Wait until they are next-door neighbors. No matter who comes out in first place there is going to be the rough equivalent of a nuclear war of words on both sides. FYI get ready for a MASSIVE amount of trolling on Macrumors. Personally I’m scared *continues to build his bunker*

PS- Heck even I'm going to setup a dual boot scenario on my future PowerBook. Streets and Trips, a few proprietary company apps, MS Access, IE (*kicks the proprietary company website) necessitates it. So I wouldn’t say rarely. I fully expect to see Mac users throwing up in the streets as they start to see Windows XP and Vista running on computers with an Apple logo. Brace yourself folks. Stock up in pepto bismol NOW. Its going to be in short supply in 2006.

I am fully aware that ZDnet et.al. will be grabbin the new intel macs to compare and there will be front page stories all over the place.
What I meant was comparing a new intel ibook to a dell etc..

I do believe Apple doesn't care if anybody dual-boots and actually expect them to be very compatible for dual booting.
Unless of course Apple removes the BIOS set-up

 

[Randall]

I am fully aware that ZDnet et.al. will be grabbin the new intel macs to compare and there will be front page stories all over the place.
What I meant was comparing a new intel ibook to a dell etc..

I do believe Apple doesn't care if anybody dual-boots and actually expect them to be very compatible for dual booting.
Unless of course Apple removes the BIOS set-up

I am willing to bet money that Apple will remove BIOS, and have no need for the Windows API etc, so dual booting will NOT be trivial by any means. Any takers?

 

[SiliconAddict]

I am willing to bet money that Apple will remove BIOS, and have no need for the Windows API etc, so dual booting will NOT be trivial by any means. Any takers?

Yah me because Apple has gone on record by saying they won't keep people from installing Windows on Macs. And even if they get rid of the PC BIOS and implement their own version it will be a matter of weeks before someone figures out a way to boot windows from it if it doesn't just work right out of the box. The basics of what Open Firmware and the BIOS do are basically the same thing. Open Firmware just has a heck of a lot more bells and whistles to it.
Remember at the end of the day Apple gets their bread and butter from hardware sales. If someone wants to load Windows on it why do they care? They just sold a $2000 computer to someone who never had any intention of running OS X in the first place. Its still a sale with the money going into Apple coffers which goes towards making new OS's. I don't really see a problem here.

 

[Randall]

Yah me because Apple has gone on record by saying they won't keep people from installing Windows on Macs. And even if they get rid of the PC BIOS and implement their own version it will be a matter of weeks before someone figures out a way to boot windows from it if it doesn't just work right out of the box. The basics of what Open Firmware and the BIOS do are basically the same thing. Open Firmware just has a heck of a lot more bells and whistles to it.
Remember at the end of the day Apple gets their bread and butter from hardware sales. If someone wants to load Windows on it why do they care? They just sold a $2000 computer to someone who never had any intention of running OS X in the first place. Its still a sale with the money going into Apple coffers which goes towards making new OS's. I don't really see a problem here.

I stand corrected. A sale is a sale that's for sure. I would get in line for a laptop that could dual boot OS X and Windows. That is sexy. That said, I hope that Apple releases a laptop with at least a two button touchpad. This Ctrl-click **** has got to go.

 

[dernhelm]

That said, I hope that Apple releases a laptop with at least a two button touchpad. This Ctrl-click **** has got to go.

I disagree. Ctrl-Click on the powerbook is much nicer than a 'right-click' button for me, and I am a long time windows and unix user. Now on a mouse, I want the right click, but above or below a touchpad give me a ctrl-click any day.

 

[Randall]

I disagree. Ctrl-Click on the powerbook is much nicer than a 'right-click' button for me, and I am a long time windows and unix user. Now on a mouse, I want the right click, but above or below a touchpad give me a ctrl-click any day.

Maybe an option for a "touch sensitive" bar below the touchpad that you can program to be single or two button (left and right handed). That would be ideal IMO. The OS supports a three button mouse, so the hardware should too.

 

[SiliconAddict]

I am fully aware that ZDnet et.al. will be grabbin the new intel macs to compare and there will be front page stories all over the place.
What I meant was comparing a new intel ibook to a dell etc..

Are you talking from a hardware perspective? Speed perspective? Price perspective or all of the above?
Because I think all three are going to be different compared to a Dell. Dell’s will always be cheaper from a price standpoint. Apple doesn’t want to get into the commodities racket and I can see why. So from a simple price standpoint Dell will generally win out. Speed could be tricky. Apple optimizes their hardware for their OS. Dropping XP on the thing and then comparing Mac hardware vs. Dell hardware could be tricky if Apple does some funky things under the hood. So that could be a toss up. But from a purely hardware perspective I think Apple is, and always will, blow Dell out of the water. In the past Apple has left out features on their hardware. (PCI-X, 7200 laptop drives, etc.) I believe this is simple to allow them an upgrade path. Face facts the CPU hasn’t been upgraded in years. So they leave out this feature and that feature that they can add in later. With the transition to x86 Apple has a huge CPU future ahead of it. No need to hold back anymore. There can be differentiation in the hardware without the feeling that they are intentionally neutering the hardware between product lines to justify price points. So I fully expect, OK hope, that the floodgates are opened on the PowerBook lines.
SATA 100GB hard drives, GeForce 7800 with 128MB VRAM, support for up to 2GB of RAM, and part of me hopes for first gen blu-ray drive. (Don’t bet on it though.) and then there is Apple’s design which I expect will require Apple to hand out Huggies as people get seated for the keynote. Soil inducing hardware? Yah that sounds about right. So from the purely hardware standpoint I expect Apple to go nuclear on Dell butt.

 

[Peace]

Are you talking from a hardware perspective? Speed perspective? Price perspective or all of the above?

All of the above.

Thats why I say it's going to be hard to compare Apples to Oranges even if their both in the same "basket".

 

[SiliconAddict]

I disagree. Ctrl-Click on the powerbook is much nicer than a 'right-click' button for me, and I am a long time windows and unix user. Now on a mouse, I want the right click, but above or below a touchpad give me a ctrl-click any day.

*cries* Not more of this....