Intel's Napa Platform with Yonah

[shigzeo]

not a dinosaur

I didnt see that (not from the States).
Just because apple keeps calling it the G4 doesnt mean nothing happened to it during the years. In fact, the original G4 and the present G4+ are totally different processors just with the same apple sticker on it. And also the G4+ has seen several revisions, with the latest one doubling the L2 cache and improvements on the vector engines. The Athlon main architecture (up to the present ones) is older then the G4+ architecture for that matter so that's a rather weak basis to build your opinion on. You might want to read up on Ars.
Nevertheless, your continuous and somewhat childish smut talk on the G4 isnt only annoying, it's also insulting to people, including professionals, that have one and are quite happy with it. You are only a few days on this forum now, perhaps you should consider adjusting your tune a bit.

as clever as you sound and as long as you have been here lurking in the anals of macrumors, you too have to listen to what you say. we all do. i suck, so do my comments and so do yours. g4 is old. 167mhz bus isn't soo bad, but the fact that very few opensource projects are optimized for it is not intriguing. I love my ibook and find that altivec supported apps are bloody fast, making my p4 at 2.2 sometimes look pathetic... enter gimp. shower, shave, eat out and then come back to watch the g4 finally finish its round of filtering. as great as it was, it is outpaced as so are your completely un 'smut[y]' comments towards Randall. We are all intensely wrong on certain topics, but to call someone's comments smutty seems in reverse, childish.

 

[SiliconAddict]

Copying software that you are not allowed to copy is illegal. Publishing trade secrets is illegal. There are no EULAs involved here. You are right when you say "NDAs are not law". The NDA only is there to keep something that Apple wants to be secret a secret, giving away secrets to developers without NDA would mean the cease to be trade secrets. However, since details of MacOS X for x86 _are_ trade secrets, a developer making them available to others is not only violating an NDA, but _also_ in breach of the law.

Well first off the site in question doesn't provide the software. So forget that. Secondly trade secrets by the Uniform Trade Secrets Act is defined as:

Information, including a formula, pattern, compilation, program device, method, technique, or process, that: (i) derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from no being generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable by proper means by, other persons who can obtain economic value from its disclosure or use, and (ii) is the subject of efforts that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy.

the only thing that site does is explain how to install OS X on non-Apple hardware. Its no more breaking trade secret laws then someone hacking a T-Mobile phone onto a Cingular network. Have you even read the site? It's basically a Wiki. Now if you are all for the borderline fascist DMCA that could be another matter.

 

[Val-kyrie]

Vocabulary

You remind me of those people that like to be contrary for the sake of being err.....contrary?

The word you want is "polemical."

 

[Val-kyrie]

Sell?

...my 2ghz centrino thinkpad is collecting dust.

Want to sell it?

 

[Photorun]

Longhorn ^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H Vista will finally tighten Windows security model - that will make it harder to crack the OS, and increase the hazard of application vulnerabilities.

Actually from some of my geek friends at Cornell, total Linuxheads who neither side with OS X or Microstuff, they'd totally disagree with your statement so I need to dissent on it, though usually you do make sense. Maybe you've been reading Microcraps press releases or talking to one of their overly optimist developers, but the Vista from the feedback I'm getting (including my old friends at my old job at Adobe Systems) your statement is far from the truth.

Vista is meet the new boss, same as the old boss. Sure the exploit holes aren't the exact same, but thanks to Microsuck's bloaty middle management, multiple teams, and groups more interested in protecting their fifedoms in Redmond, the same system of people there, if anything, even worse than before. They're already writing viruses for Vistas which from my vague understanding as it was explained by "let's break it" Linux geeks with too much time on their hands hacking away, it's not stuff Microcrap can just tighten up, it's stuff that can be exploited now, and later in the OS. It is, after all, Microsoft, same people who made Win95, Win98 was 1700 bug fixes for 95 (while adding 900+), then ME (more bug fixes, more new bugs), XP (lipstick on a pig at best) and so on.

Coding from the ground up (which, really Vista isn't) doesn't mean as an organization they've learned anything, if anything else the culture there (one I visited and saw firsthand in the 90s and it was arrogant then) is only getting worse, they honestly do not care that much, there's too much pressure to just get through the day, at the top they're dellusional about their dominance of the market to the point where an acquaintance who writes for PC Mag perhaps profetically claimed (about their mindsets by the out-of-touch people who are at the top) "the bigger they are the harder they fall." Not to say the entire company will just spiral down a rabbit hole (though that'd be nice) but companies that thought they were so big and untouchable they'd be kings forever have a funny way of crashing and burning, the history of business if full of them, usually often marked by their perceptions people will simply line up at their doors and they don't need to do anything that different. Welcome to history Microsoft, hope the door DOES hit you on the arse on your way out.

I use the words "championing mediocrity" way too much but it's never so apt as the group current at the MS campus, and it's only getting worse. Anyone thinking Vista is going to be a whole new era of Microsoft, free of viruses and loaded with stability and compatibility, are not only delusional but will shortly feel sadly mistaken.

 

[kjs862]

What do you think will be the first desktop to be replaced with intel and when do you think it will come out? I'm guessing the mac mini, but not sure of when.

 

[GregA]

Of course the 1.67Ghz G4 v 1.7Ghz Pentium-M comparison is academic as there's a dual core 2.16Ghz Pentium-M in January and more to follow and no faster G4s or a laptop G5 on the horizon.

What ever happened to the Dual Core G4 that Freescale (nee Motorola) was making (MPC8641D). It had speeds starting at 1.67Ghz, a 667Mhz frontside bus, low power usage (lower than Pentium-M), built in ethernet and PCI-E interface, etc.

AFAIK, it was due for sampling 2nd half of 2005, and was on a similar timeframe to Yonah. If the PPC is a simpler architecture (as stated by some here) I assume the cost would be less. But perhaps Freescale didn't bother to make this after all (or ran into some other problem?).

I highly doubt that Apple will release any higher-performance G4 stuff - it's more likely to be removed from the range early in the switch (though Apple "is under contract to use Freescale chips to build its G4 PowerPC computers through the end of 2008" (http://tinyurl.com/7r8cv) and the Freescale CEO said: "Our only customer is Apple (for laptops), and they are switching to Intel sometime next year. We were not happy to lose a customer").

Nevertheless - anyone know what happened?

 

[JFreak]

You're right. I appoligize to all the G4 owners out there. I was unaware of the changes that went on behind the scenes for the G4, and it's evolution into the G4+. I still feel that it is at a distinct disadvantage compaired to some of the newer processors designed for the mobile platform, in particular the dual core Pentium M coming soon.

Pentium-M design is based on Pentium-3, which is essentially the same as Pentium-2 that is an evolution of Pentium Pro. I believe that basic design has been on market for over ten years, so declaring it "newer design" feels like marketing hype to me.

Granted, the mind set of customers wants to constantly see bigger numbers on boxes so they can justify the purchase; which basically means that most people buy most things without real purpose, only enjoying the idea of bigger number being better. But in real life computing power needs to double (!) before it has any real advantage, and that doubling real life performance the system needs to be 3X as powerful as the comparison -- naturally these are points nobody wants to advertise

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.

I think I will be one of those that even the idea feels sick; however, I doubt that the hardware Apple will be selling is not supported by Windows XP, so the only Windows we might see running on Apple hardware should be the VI(rus)STA(tion).

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.

That's exactly the point in such benchmarks. If you run it on the 100% same hardware, then you're not benchmarking hardware, are you? No. You're benchmarking the operating system and how the benchmarking software has been optimised to run. We might see very interesting results!

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).

Let's say there's a benchmarking software that is only benchmarking the OS and that benchmarking software shows that OSX is 50% more efficient (another exageration) than Windows. Then there's would be this Adobe app benchmark that shows their Windows version runs 20% faster (your number) than their OSX version -- wouldn't that mean Adobe is making crappy OSX software instead of benefiting from the possibility of 50% more efficient operating system? From the developers point of view that should drive development into OSX and into learning to code more efficient software on OSX over time.

The only bad situation for OSX would be if bencmarks would always show that Windows platform is more efficient than OSX; however I wouldn't be afraid

 

[gnasher729]

Really, from this point on it's all about exterior design and software as the difference between buying an Apple or someone else's computer. If MacOSX is slower than Windows on essentially the same hardware then Apple will have a lot of people asking why.

Since MacOS X on my 733 MHz G4 at home runs at least as fast as XP on a 2.4 GHz Dell at work, I think there is not much danger of that. (The hardware itself is definitely slower, it just does things faster. )

 

[SiliconAddict]

I think I will be one of those that even the idea feels sick; however, I doubt that the hardware Apple will be selling is not supported by Windows XP, so the only Windows we might see running on Apple hardware should be the VI(rus)STA(tion).

Keep in mind that the core components, at least for gen one of the x86 Power/iBooks, will probably be Intel chipsets along with standard off the shelf GPU's from ATI or Nvidia. XP is surprisingly flexible when it comes to the hardware it will run on. The most difficult piece of hardware I expect to find drivers for will be audio.
A generic driver for the HD, optical disk and USB should all “just be found” by XP. But this is all just speculation at this point. Apple said they wouldn’t keep anyone from installing Windows on a system. They never said anything about making it easy.

 

[Randall]

Pentium-M design is based on Pentium-3, which is essentially the same as Pentium-2 that is an evolution of Pentium Pro. I believe that basic design has been on market for over ten years, so declaring it "newer design" feels like marketing hype to me.

You are reaching here a little bit. Granted that the Pentium-M design is partly based on the Pentium III (of which I have one... a Pentium III 866 MHz "Coppermine", and IMO it's a better design then the Pentium 4). The fact is that a dual core implimentation of the Pentium M line is a new design. I can't speak for the rest of the folks here, but I for one do not consider this to be marketing hype at all. You will notice an increase in performance and decrease in power consumption with Yonah, and that, I believe is the reason that techincally inclined people like us are interrested in it. Not because it has "bigger numbers", but generally speaking, you are correct in saying that the masses don't really understand the technology at all, and assume that more GHz = better, which is annoying.

That said, there is a reason that "that basic design" has been on market for over ten years. And it's because "it just works" heh

so the only Windows we might see running on Apple hardware should be the VI(rus)STA(tion).

Bravo! Very cleaver there

 

[JJTiger1]

You're right. I appoligize to all the G4 owners out there. I was unaware of the changes that went on behind the scenes for the G4, and it's evolution into the G4+. I still feel that it is at a distinct disadvantage compaired to some of the newer processors designed for the mobile platform, in particular the dual core Pentium M coming soon.

I'm a G4 owner. I was not offended.

I am in the market for a new laptop, my first laptop. I find any and all comments about the Mac laptops useful.

Yes, the G4's have evolved over the years. The G4 chip development was not static. However I have never heard of the term: G4+.

A little bit of history of the TowerMac G4 and why I waited:

Gigabit Ethernet model @ up to dual 500 mhz, PowerPC chip 7400 : I waited because it was not a leap from my then current OBM (Old Beige Mac) that was upgraded to G3/400.

Digital Audio model @ up to 733 mhz, PowerPC chip 7410 or 7450 : The 733 was a fantastic leap. I drooled, but I waited because of the cost.

QuickSilver 2001 model @ 733, 867, and dual 800, PowerPC chip 7450 : I drooled and foamed because of the huge price drop, but I waited until the QuickSilver 2002's came out.

In February of 2002, the left over older QuickSilver 2001's were Closeout Priced and put on the pile with other Obsolete hardware. I could not resist the price for the 733.

I thought that I was buying the older QuickSilver 2001 G4/733. What I got was the store's QuickSilver 2002ED Education Market demo-model. (It's the same thing as the 2001, but with a 2002 serial number.) Later Education market models were 800mhz with PowerPC chip 7455.

So, here it is, almost four years later. My QS G4/733 is still 733 mhz, but the chassis has been upgraded with all of the optional toys. Processor upgrades are reasonably priced, but I don't need one just yet.

Now, MacIntel is dawning upon us.

And it looks like I need a laptop for work purposes.

MacIntel laptop needs to interface via ethernet with the QS G4/733 before I get the Mac laptop.
MacIntel laptop needs to interface via FireWire with the camcorder before I get the Mac laptop.
MacIntel laptop needs to have universal wireless internet capability, just like the G4 laptop before I get the Mac laptop.

If the MacIntel can't meet all of those requirements, then it's a No-Sale.



All of the numbers on all of the sheets of paper that state the comparison of this versus that, are totally meaningless if the computer doesn't work in real life.

I can wait for the laptop. I can wait to pick up one of the MacIntels, or one of the castaway left-over obsolete G4's.

The bottom line is the bottom line. Cost.

Games? Children who need games need to get an X-Box 360. Keep that kid stuff off of the grown-up's computer.
=-=-=
JJ Tiger

 

[Sunrunner]

Want to sell it?

Want to make video of it getting smashed to pieces and post it here?

 

[aegisdesign]

What ever happened to the Dual Core G4 that Freescale (nee Motorola) was making (MPC8641D). It had speeds starting at 1.67Ghz, a 667Mhz frontside bus, low power usage (lower than Pentium-M), built in ethernet and PCI-E interface, etc.

AFAIK, it was due for sampling 2nd half of 2005, and was on a similar timeframe to Yonah. If the PPC is a simpler architecture (as stated by some here) I assume the cost would be less. But perhaps Freescale didn't bother to make this after all (or ran into some other problem?).

I highly doubt that Apple will release any higher-performance G4 stuff - it's more likely to be removed from the range early in the switch (though Apple "is under contract to use Freescale chips to build its G4 PowerPC computers through the end of 2008" (http://tinyurl.com/7r8cv) and the Freescale CEO said: "Our only customer is Apple (for laptops), and they are switching to Intel sometime next year. We were not happy to lose a customer").

Nevertheless - anyone know what happened?

8641(D) are sampling now IIRC with a couple of customers in the embedded space announcing boards. 1H2006 is the supposed production date so it's not really due the same time as Yonah.

However, as a Yonah competitor it'd be almost there. Some things it does better - like built in memory controllers and direct Gig-ethernet and 1-8x PCIe direct, some worse - like power throttling and cache sharing and the fact it's only 1.5Ghz listed, at least at the 10 year MTBF mark the embedded guys are after.

Both Yonah and the 8641D would require Apple to produce completely new motherboards and this change isn't about CPUs anyway, it's about platforms. Intel provide everything. Apple would still have serious engineering to do with the 8641.

 

[aegisdesign]

Since MacOS X on my 733 MHz G4 at home runs at least as fast as XP on a 2.4 GHz Dell at work, I think there is not much danger of that. (The hardware itself is definitely slower, it just does things faster. )

It depends on what you're doing.

As I said earlier, Apple's OpenGL implementation is a bottleneck. That's why at some tasks, even if it's fully multithreaded, even the Quad PowerMac is slower than a Pentium4 single processor machine.

 

[Phoenix007]

Is that what that thing is supposed to be? heh It was an interresting choice over the generic hour glass I must admit.

Actually, the choice was made before the hourglass was 'generic' (or used). I happen to know one of the people who made the beachball.. I had no idea what it was (like most people), and was coming up with ideas when he told me "No, it's a beach ball."

After arguing with him for about 20 mins, it took about a year to remove my foot from my mouth =).

 

[qtip919]

Actually from some of my geek friends at Cornell, total Linuxheads who neither side with OS X or Microstuff, they'd totally disagree with your statement so I need to dissent on it, though usually you do make sense. Maybe you've been reading Microcraps press releases or talking to one of their overly optimist developers, but the Vista from the feedback I'm getting (including my old friends at my old job at Adobe Systems) your statement is far from the truth.

Vista is meet the new boss, same as the old boss. Sure the exploit holes aren't the exact same, but thanks to Microsuck's bloaty middle management, multiple teams, and groups more interested in protecting their fifedoms in Redmond, the same system of people there, if anything, even worse than before. They're already writing viruses for Vistas which from my vague understanding as it was explained by "let's break it" Linux geeks with too much time on their hands hacking away, it's not stuff Microcrap can just tighten up, it's stuff that can be exploited now, and later in the OS. It is, after all, Microsoft, same people who made Win95, Win98 was 1700 bug fixes for 95 (while adding 900+), then ME (more bug fixes, more new bugs), XP (lipstick on a pig at best) and so on.

Coding from the ground up (which, really Vista isn't) doesn't mean as an organization they've learned anything, if anything else the culture there (one I visited and saw firsthand in the 90s and it was arrogant then) is only getting worse, they honestly do not care that much, there's too much pressure to just get through the day, at the top they're dellusional about their dominance of the market to the point where an acquaintance who writes for PC Mag perhaps profetically claimed (about their mindsets by the out-of-touch people who are at the top) "the bigger they are the harder they fall." Not to say the entire company will just spiral down a rabbit hole (though that'd be nice) but companies that thought they were so big and untouchable they'd be kings forever have a funny way of crashing and burning, the history of business if full of them, usually often marked by their perceptions people will simply line up at their doors and they don't need to do anything that different. Welcome to history Microsoft, hope the door DOES hit you on the arse on your way out.

I use the words "championing mediocrity" way too much but it's never so apt as the group current at the MS campus, and it's only getting worse. Anyone thinking Vista is going to be a whole new era of Microsoft, free of viruses and loaded with stability and compatibility, are not only delusional but will shortly feel sadly mistaken.

hmmm

Im not quite sure where to attack this rant, but Im going to give you some bait to chew on and I'll see if you bite.

Microsoft sales figures are getting better and better each year. The only competing product which they are seriously threatened by is their own previous versions.

Case in point: Exchange Server + Outlook 2003

This is the pinnacle of email functionality and the best product coupling that Microsoft has even provided. I specialize in r&d in this area, and I will go ahead and claim to be an expert

Let me tell you this: I WISH there was a competing product for OS X in this arena. Combined with their pricing model (unlimted users for how much!?!) Apple could blow the doors off of the small-medium business and slowly erode the larger enterprise customers through sheer envy within the IT community.

Back to my point -

They are dominating this market, and its only about to get better for them as they solve everyone's migration problems case by case

Now, the OS is a funny story. How much can you realisticly upgrade an OS without spending too much money? The NT kernel is not as problematic as you are led to believe. You should understand that any operating system is riddled with inherent security issues for the comprimise of the ability to execute code. Windows is exploited in a way that simply makes this more extreme.

If I was interested at all in this sort of thing, I could write a virus for OS X without investing much intellectual horsepower, and believe me, it would be a snap.

Everyone around here that thinks that failure in the OS development game could take microsoft down is seriously underestimating the structure and power behind this organization. Their biggest problem is their sloppiness at how they attack any given market. However, given time, they have enough resources to simply bleed out the competition while innovating (I mean) "purchasing" the competition

Watch the markets in which they are competing...Corporate markets, and tell me where you see their CURRENT failures.

Screw the home user, that's biggest loser market to be had...its rife with piracy and the real money in there provides little motivation to do anything truly great.

2nd point -

We need to stop acting like OS X has been fine crafted out of spun gold. This OS is largely a hack, and Jobs better seriously better get started on the next generation of Operating system for Apple because the day is coming what OS X and all of it's glory is going to be nothing but a memory...think waaaay back to the 90's...

By the way, just because you know some geeks at cornell doesnt mean they could do jack squat within Microsoft to improve on either their business or their code base...Do you know how many leading minds in the computing world are on the Microsoft dime? I know people within that r&d M$ group that could make you little buddies seem like they just graduated from the 2nd grade...and believe me, these guys invest alot into the future of this company...

 

[OSSfan]

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.

I'm using iScoll2 on my powerbook, and if I put 2 fingers on the touchpad and click, it gives me the contectual menu. Works very nicely.

 

[Phoenix007]

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?

I can see for a couple of reasons...

1) People want the choice.

I like OS X, that's why I want to use it. If I'm fine using whatever to get the job done, I can download GIMP and brute force my way through it. Adobe (in particular, but it applies generally) want sales. Long-term sales are generated by pleasing customers. Adobe thinks the market segment is significant to them, if not they would have dropped Apple a long time ago.

2) Can't blame the hardware.

If a given vendor's software runs at significantly different speeds on different OS'es, and not everything else does... well, let's just say that's not a position I want to be in. Customers will hold the software vendors accountable for the performance more on each platform, which is a good thing.

3) Lower cost to support.

Assuming any given company worth it's salt is writing good, portable code, the time/work to support the other platform will be much lower. Granted, it depends on what you are using (say DirectX and CoreImage calls instead of direct OpenGL calls), but having the same basic architecture means less work (e.g., I don't need to support another frigg'n byte order).


Additionally, you are forgetting that while Windows has the larger developer codebase right now, the Intel switch will most likely get more support. I know at our office, I've managed to get corporate commitment to the platform (because of item three above in particular).


Overall, it comes down to if you believe competiton and honest comparison (knowing of course "there are lies, damn lies, and benchmarks") are good or not. I think it makes everyone better.

 

[tristan]

Let's say there's a benchmarking software that is only benchmarking the OS and that benchmarking software shows that OSX is 50% more efficient (another exageration) than Windows. Then there's would be this Adobe app benchmark that shows their Windows version runs 20% faster (your number) than their OSX version -- wouldn't that mean Adobe is making crappy OSX software instead of benefiting from the possibility of 50% more efficient operating system?

I doubt its going to be that cut and dry. You could probably build two Adobe test suites, one in which Windows crushes, one in which OSX crushes, just because you're using a mix of features that happen to be faster in one OS than another. Nobody runs the benchmark all day on their computer, they run random applications with random mixes of features.