Mac OS X Intel Developer Box Feedback

[abhishake]

In actuality

Strange that it is so fast already, has Apple really been lying to us all these years?

Steve Jobs said himself in some interview that they have actually secretly made every Mac OS on an intel machine just in case they ever had to make the switch. That time is now... SO they were already set.

 

[SiliconAddict]

well they have had osx running on intel boxes from the beginning which mean sthat the whole "mega-hertz myth" was just a ruse to buy time until they could switch to intel.

No. Its called not putting your eggs in one basket. Something any company who is dependant on only one (OK technically 2) suppliers would do. This seems to be one of the single biggest points that Mac users can't wrap their heads around. What Apple did they did to insure that they weren't blindsided by either Moto or IBM and left getting screwed which seems to be the case right now.

 

[RIP]

After reading the article;

I feel as though during this whole PowerPC ride I have been deceived and lied to and I believed it completely.

It appears Apple has made a good decision here. I still feel smitten however.

 

[goof_ball]

No. Its called not putting your eggs in one basket. Something any company who is dependant on only one (OK technically 2) suppliers would do. This seems to be one of the single biggest points that Mac users can't wrap their heads around. What Apple did they did to insure that they weren't blindsided by either Moto or IBM and left getting screwed which seems to be the case right now.

What's the difference now? They switched from two baskets to a different two baskets.

 

[Mac-Xpert]

2). There's absolutely no benchmarks/comparions/etc. You can't compare web browsers...that's just stupid. Perhaps they could provide us with some evidence...

I totally agree. This *news* is nothing new. It's the exact same story without any real prove. They say that the emulated apps run at 65-70% of the native speed, but the xbench benchmarks we have seen showed speed drops of as much as 30x to 40x times the speed of a 2.7 GHz G5. Now those might not be accurate either, but this talk of "it's fast.." or "runs faster than a 2.x GHz G5" seem to really be based on subjective interpretations rather than facts.

 

[nagromme]

Sounds like making OS X Intel native FROM THE BEGINNING 5 years ago and maintaining all versions all along will pay off. Porting a whole OS from PPC to Intel without such advance planning would not go nearly so well.

And I think Rosetta will do just fine too--it's even suitable for (some) games, reportedly. And remember, Intel Macs will be using FUTURE Intel chips, not current ones like the dev boxes have. And they will have real GPUs, which the dev Macs lack! (So no 30" screens on the dev kits, I don't think.)

So Rosetta will be running last year's apps on next year's hardware. That's nice elbow room performance-wise.

Now bring on the dual-core Pentium Ms! And the new desktop chips based on Pentium M!

I don't like to get version A hardware either, but I think I'll have to this time. I can JUST wait until early next year, but no longer. Fingers crossed that a 12" Yonah PowerBook with 23" external display can be mine!

Now bring on the cries of "Apple lied!" even though what Apple said was "G4/G5 are faster than Intel at these tasks NOW"--which was true.

Apple never said "G4/G5 will be faster than Intel forever no matter what IBM does"--which would be silly. Apple is switching to FUTURE Intel chips. This isn't about this year's chips or last year's chips. Currently, the G5 may not stand clearly ahead of Intel they way PPC once did, but a PowerMac is no slouch by any means. G4 laptops (which Apple just sold in record numbers) have a harder time competing with Pentium M. But then, raw speed isn't the only reason to choose a laptop.

 

[iMeowbot]

Strange that it is so fast already, has Apple really been lying to us all these years?

I wouldn't say that they lied, but they were selective with the truth, just as virtually all companies using benchmarks are. It was always a horse race.

 

[gwangung]

What's the difference now? They switched from two baskets to a different two baskets.

BIIIIIG difference.

With IBM, Apple HAD to have a speed advantage to counter the non-Intel problem. Being "non-compatable" works only if you're measurably superior; parity, or even worse, lagging behind, is pretty much poison. And, like it nor not, the G5 spent 80-90% of its time being behind or comparable.

Now, being on the Intel side, there's no penalty if Intel misses deadlines or lags; you're in the same boat as Dell and other Windows manufacturers.

 

[enoch]

It's "fared," not "faired."

I believe this is Macrumors, not Macspelling. (Holds down crtl-apple-d)

 

[hyperb0le]

Does anyone who has the Developer Box think that it's worth $1499 as a PC alone?

While I don't need a new Mac right away, I have for some time been thinking about (1) learning some programming and (2) getting a PC for some PC-only applications.

So, query: How would a Developer Box stack up against a general-production $1499 PC?

(I say $1499, because I'd have to pick up the $500 Dev. Membership in addition to the $999 price tag.)

No. Buying an ADC membership solely to purchase a developer machine is a bad idea. The developers are not actually buying the machines. They are renting them, and must return them to Apple by the end of 2006. While this is fine for a development environment, it would be pointless to rent one to use as an everyday machine, only to return it in a year...

 

[abrooks]

Does anyone know if these boxes work with the 30" Cinema Display?

Well the short and snappy answer is yes because Apple would be stupid to make a display that can't be used on there hardware. The long answer is that the graphics cards that are in Macs are pretty much the same as those which go in Macs, which means 30" Displays can run on anything that supports it graphics card wise, which now a days is a lot.

 

[El Phantasmo]

So this $999 price tag has no relation whatsoever with the final price that consumers will pay for the first powermacs with intel chips right?

Can we at least expect a price drop for the whole lineup when intel is used accross the board?

 

[Mac-Xpert]

I feel as though during this whole PowerPC ride I have been deceived and lied to and I believed it completely.

It appears Apple has made a good decision here. I still feel smitten however.

Do you really believe that? Just because a handful of enthusiastic developers say "oh this Intel box is sooo fast.." without giving any kind of hard numbers. While at the same time there are plenty of benchmarks showing that it takes the fastest available Xeon workstation (3.6 GHz) to be able to be a little bit faster and in some cases slower than a 2.7 GHz G5, testing the same real native apps on both systems.

What makes more sense? A bunch of unspecified claims, or real available numbers.

 

[gangst]

Does anyone know if these boxes work with the 30" Cinema Display?

Thanks

Yeah they will work, but I don't think the Intel onboard graphics will be able to power the 30' display at full resolution.

 

[idea_hamster]

The developers are not actually buying the machines. They are renting them, and must return them to Apple by the end of 2006.

WHAH! How did I miss that?!

Sometimes, I can be such a ... hmmm, what's a good word here? ... maybe "chump" works.

 

[goof_ball]

BIIIIIG difference.

With IBM, Apple HAD to have a speed advantage to counter the non-Intel problem. Being "non-compatable" works only if you're measurably superior; parity, or even worse, lagging behind, is pretty much poison. And, like it nor not, the G5 spent 80-90% of its time being behind or comparable.

Now, being on the Intel side, there's no penalty if Intel misses deadlines or lags; you're in the same boat as Dell and other Windows manufacturers.

I don't think you understood this thread. This is talking about the number of suppliers, which has not changed with the switch. Your comment states that now Apple isin the same basket as other PC sellers which is irrelevant.

 

[michaelrjohnson]

Well the short and snappy answer is yes because Apple would be stupid to make a display that can't be used on there hardware. The long answer is that the graphics cards that are in Macs are pretty much the same as those which go in Macs, which means 30" Displays can run on anything that supports it graphics card wise, which now a days is a lot.

I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to say here, but the answer is "No." The integrated Intel 900 graphics chip installed in the developer boxes is not capable of driving the 30in display. (based on what I've read)

However, will future PowerMac (Mactel) machines be able to drive the 30in ACD? Most definitly.

 

[bug]

I feel as though during this whole PowerPC ride I have been deceived and lied to and I believed it completely.

So many people have commented on the fact that they feel lied to - about what? At the time they were making the statements, the statements were true. Guess what? Technology changes, so what may have been true a couple of years ago is no longer true.

Geez - its like saying Atari has been screwing us all this time because they once claimed that the 2600 was the most powerful home video game console, and now even Atari has admitted that the XBox is faster! Those lying bastards!

Suck it up - Intel started making faster chips. Really we don't even have any solid evidence that the OS X Intel boxes are beating top of the line G5s, and anyone who was foolish enough to think that the G4s in powerbooks were the fastest mobile chip out there is an idiot. Maybe someone can produce some benchmark showing the Intel Macs are faster - that proves nothing other than 'they are faster now'. It doesn't discredit the entire history of PPC.

There still is a MHz myth - otherwise my 3 GHz P4 would be faster than a 2 GHz Opteron - guess what, its not.

 

[michaelrjohnson]

So this $999 price tag has no relation whatsoever with the final price that consumers will pay for the first powermacs with intel chips right?

Can we at least expect a price drop for the whole lineup when intel is used accross the board?

I wouldn't get too comfy with the idea of an across-the-board price drop. Apple's machines are currently fairly comparably priced on a per-feature basis. When they switch to Intel chips, it's unlikely that they'll give up their profit margin completly. They want to be competetively priced, but they won't undercut PC sales. No way.

Although... it would be nice.

 

[schatten]

Dual-booting to Windows is NOT a good thing...

Think about it. If Mac users can dual-boot Mac OS X or WinXP (or eventually Longhorn) Then what would be the point in software developers like Adobe, Microsoft, or (and especially) smaller developers & shareware developers making Mac-based software? Why make software for the 2% market share if that 2% can just buy a box copy of Windows & run their apps thusly?

A dearth in OS X-native software would seriously harm Apple's leverage, even if OS X is a better, easier to use OS.

I honestly hope Apple makes it as difficult as possible to load Windows on a Macintel box. (even though current speculation indicates they won't)

It would be a pity to see Mac OS X go down the same road IBM's OS/2 went.

 

[broken_keyboard]

Yeah they will work, but I don't think the Intel onboard graphics will be able to power the 30' display at full resolution.

The integrated Intel 900 graphics chip installed in the developer boxes is not capable of driving the 30in display. (based on what I've read)

OK thanks. I'm not too concerned if it can't go at full res, my main concern is that it can physically plug in and drive at some res. In general, can a DVI-D dual link monitor be plugged in to a single link video card?

 

[AidenShaw]

don't even need dual boot - just run Virtual PC !!

Why make software for the 2% market share if that 2% can just buy a box copy of Windows & run their apps thusly?

Note that an x64 version of Virtual PC for Mac would perform most tasks (especially compute-intensive tasks) at nearly native speed....

So the question is - why build a Mac version if a simple program will run the Windows app at nearly full speed?

Who knows, maybe you'll see VMware get into the Mac market as well - and you'll have a choice of two virtual environments for your Windows, Linux and Solaris apps....

 

[GeeYouEye]

I wouldn't believe any of these "benchmarks" for a second. The more important question is: Under what optimization did Apple compile the IA-32 version of OS X? If it's at anything other than -Os (optimized for size, rather than speed, in order to limit the huge memory footprint the OS already has), then these benchmarks are absolutely meaningless, since that's what the final version will run with.

The facts remain. PowerPC is a superior ISA to IA-32(!) (and most certainly a better hardware architecture than Netburst; however the speed under a P4 with -O2 optimization should be roughly comparable to the Yonah dual PM core with -Os), and always has been. It's a shame that Apple is going to sacrifice that to sell hardware, but that's what Apple is all about: selling hardware.

PowerPC as an architecture has a very bright future. However, if IBM doesn't deliver that future, there's nothing Apple can do but switch to another technology, though why they didn't choose Itanium II or Opteron as the base technology... I suppose they'll need IA-32 for laptops. Too bad.

 

[jdurston]

Yeah I can't wait for the Power Macs. Im gonna be in the market about two years from now (maybe 3 actually). And I'm veeeeeeeeewwy anxious to get my first Power Mac.

People keep saying they are waiting for intel "POWERmacs" and "POWERbooks". Why would the next generation of intel based Macs include "Power" in their names if they don't use power type processors. It seems counter-intuitive. I'm expecting a new name for the next generation of Intel Macs to be differentiated by a totally new name.

-Josh

 

[D*I*S_Frontman]

So many people have commented on the fact that they feel lied to - about what? At the time they were making the statements, the statements were true. Guess what? Technology changes, so what may have been true a couple of years ago is no longer true.

Geez - its like saying Atari has been screwing us all this time because they once claimed that the 2600 was the most powerful home video game console, and now even Atari has admitted that the XBox is faster! Those lying bastards!

Suck it up - Intel started making faster chips. Really we don't even have any solid evidence that the OS X Intel boxes are beating top of the line G5s, and anyone who was foolish enough to think that the G4s in powerbooks were the fastest mobile chip out there is an idiot. Maybe someone can produce some benchmark showing the Intel Macs are faster - that proves nothing other than 'they are faster now'. It doesn't discredit the entire history of PPC.

There still is a MHz myth - otherwise my 3 GHz P4 would be faster than a 2 GHz Opteron - guess what, its not.

Ok, Bug's post makes more sense than any onther on this thread thus far. When they first came out, G4's were incredible. When they first came out, G5's were incredible. But in both cases, the quantum leap became mired in place while the competition kept soldiering on.

The univeral binary ethic to retain "platform independence" is absolutely brilliant. Chip R&D seems to lurch forward in fits and starts, and Steve can switch horses midstream any ol' time the situation warrants it. IBM, Freescale, Intel, AMD--Steve can now bet on several horses--not be roped to some nag who sprints out of the gate and turns into a dog before the wire.

Megahertz myth is still in place. Now we add the factor of "heat/performance" and the whole thing becomes even murkier to the non-computer-engineer buying public.

The fact that PMs, PBooks, and iBooks still sold like mad throughout Q3, despite their performance shortcomings when compared spec-for-spec with Windows machines should tell you that the average Joe-Schmo will buy Macs no matter what the comparisons say--so long as they come bundled with great software, never crash, look cool, are easy to use, and remain relatively virus-free.

Seven BILLION in the bank. I like Apple's R&D outlook for the next several years. And I could care less if the next Mac I buy uses Intel, IBM, or six grey squirrels adding on abacuses--if it crunches video render time of gives me more simultaneous audio tracks at mixdown, I'm cool with it. I certainly don't feel "lied to." PPC WAS superior--now it isn't necessarily better or faster in every context. So what? I want to get work done, and I don't care how the CPU does it--only that it does the work FAST without a meltdown.