Mac OS X Intel Developer Box Feedback

[bug]

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.

This is certainly the key - I feel this change was far more about getting fast chips into laptops then about ultimate processing power. If you look at the line-up, G5s are fast, but there are Intel solutions that are about the same - so even if we merely 'break-even' there, that's fine. The real deal is that the laptops are going to get chips that are much better in the "heat/power consumption/performance" balance than what we have now - by quite a bit.

So basically we will have desktops that are the same or better, and laptops that are much better. If all Apple was making was desktops, they may not have switched to Intel at all. No one is now claiming "G5s are way too slow, lets move to Intel". The reasons are more complex then that. I imagine we will see the dual core G5s in powermacs shortly, and they will move them over much later because they are still very competitive. ...but honestly I almost consider the power difference between G4s and mobile Intels to be a 'crisis situation' that needed to be addressed immediately.

In fact, this strengthens the 'MHz Myth' argument as the chips that I feel Apple is trying to get by moving to Intel (the mobile line) have a much lower MHz rating then the Intel desktops, and if you compare clock for clock, the mobile line would be faster then the desktop line.

...so how is this lying at all?

 

[guez]

Hang on a sec

Ok, Bug's post makes more sense than any onther on this thread thus far.

I disagree. It strains credibility to think that Apple has timed the Intel switch to correspond exactly to the moment when Intel will surpass the PowerPC architecture. It seems more likely that Apple exaggerated the PowerPC's superiority until the day when they announced switch to Intel, at which point they insisted on the superiority of the new platform. BTW, the whole "Performance units/watt" stinks of more Apple spin. What the hell is a perfomance unit? Steve is very good at coming up with vaguely plausible, but largely specious, reasons for anything he decides to do.

I'm not saying Apple isn't making the right decision. I just think it is naive to think that Apple hasn't been spinning this whole thing for years.

 

[Stella]

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

I wouldn't call it lying. Lying is very much over used word - when not appropriate.

"Apple lied to us".

No they didn't.

Apple are not going to say PPC processors are slower than Intel... its not good marketing practice.

Anyway, as it stands, PPC were faster in some tasks than Intel, and vice versa.

I'm looking forward to having good Java performance ( which I need - please don't say Java sucks because it doesn't.. Java apps need not be slow these days ) through faster processors.

Faster machines all round, hopefully

 

[GFLPraxis]

Web pages snap to the screen, the same way they do in Internet Explorer running on a new Pentium system, they say.

LOL! I got a kick out of this quote.

For you non-windows users...the reason the word "new" is there before Pentium, is because when you buy a new Windows PC it runs very fast.

6 months later it runs fairly slow.

1 year later it runs slower than a 500 MHz Celeron.

2 years later it runs so slow you go get lunch while FireFox opens.

I'm experiencing this now but can't reformat because I don't have a backup drive big enough to back up EVERYTHING (important stuff are already backed up but I have so many little things that I would rather not lose).

And more importantly, they forgot to include my restore disks when I bought the machine, and those jerks at Sony won't respond to my emails.

 

[illumin8]

See now, there are two things that are wrong about the article, in my mindset.

1). They say Windows XP is "blazing." Compared to what? Virtual PC? A 3.6GHz P4 doesn't really "blaze" at XP, unless you're doing basic stuff...I can't see how this system would be anything special compared to any other x86 box, so I don't even see the relevance of this comment.

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...

Then again, no one has to do anything, so I should stop complaining .

I'm sorry, but you don't know wtf you're talking about. A P4 3.6 is blazing, however you slice it. I have a P4 3.4 ghz with 1GB DDR2-533 memory, and it's fast as hell. It blows away any PowerMac when it comes to framerate at Doom 3, along with a slew of other tasks. Probably the only thing the PowerMac would be faster at is video encoding/decoding using Altivec. Integer performance, which most apps use, rocks on this thing.

Yawn... yet another PowerPC zealot spouting FUD about the platform.

 

[GFLPraxis]

I wouldn't call it lying. Lying is very much over used word - when not appropriate.

"Apple lied to us".

No they didn't.

Apple are not going to say PPC processors are slower than Intel... its not good marketing practice.

Anyway, as it stands, PPC were faster in some tasks than Intel, and vice versa.

I'm looking forward to having good Java performance ( which I need - please don't say Java sucks because it doesn't.. Java apps need not be slow these days ) through faster processors.

Faster machines all round, hopefully

I think though, that due to the lack of AltiVec, the Intel Macs won't have QUITE the same Photoshop performance. PC's struggle a bit more on that generally. But the PC's usually do simple stuff like web browsing a lot faster.


And Photoshop in Rosetta performs horribly as shown during Stevie's keynote. No AltiVec + emulation = hideous performance with the same white afterimages my PC has.

 

[GFLPraxis]

I'm sorry, but you don't know wtf you're talking about. A P4 3.6 is blazing, however you slice it. I have a P4 3.4 ghz with 1GB DDR2-533 memory, and it's fast as hell. It blows away any PowerMac when it comes to framerate at Doom 3, along with a slew of other tasks. Probably the only thing the PowerMac would be faster at is video encoding/decoding using Altivec. Integer performance, which most apps use, rocks on this thing.

Yawn... yet another PowerPC zealot spouting FUD about the platform.

Well, a P4 3.6 GHz blazes at Windows...when it's a new installation. Use it for a year and tell me it blazes

It should still perform great at games but thats the graphics card more than the processor. And if you're running Linux it should blaze too. It's not a slow processor at all. But it's running a crappy inefficient OS...

 

[andiwm2003]

I imagine we will see the dual core G5s in powermacs shortly, and they will move them over much later because they are still very competitive. ...but honestly I almost consider the power difference between G4s and mobile Intels to be a 'crisis situation' that needed to be addressed immediately.

uh, when i look at the overall benchmarks then a 1.5 G4 is about as fast as a "1.5 Ghz" G5. when i compare overall performance, then my PB is about 30% to 60% slower that a "single processor" Powermac and about as fast as a comparable Notebook from the intel side.
I don't see a performance crisis with the G4, because the G4 is not that much slower than a G5.

it is only a performance crisis if you compare a 1 inch thick PB with 4 hrs battery life to a 3GHz Intel 2.5 inch brick with 90 min battery life. essentially you're comparing a desktop replacement to a highly mobile machine.

but yes, the PB's have to get faster with longer battery life. and i hope intel chips can accomplish that.

my 2 cents.

 

[dontmatter]

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

no, they went from their eggs in two baskets publicly, but four privately, to now, two special baskets, because they're the same baskets as everybody else is in. It's way less of a liability to have all your eggs in one or two baskets if it's the same as everybody else.

 

[Peyote]

I'd like something cleared up for me....

Can these Macintels run windows apps only through emulation? that doesn't really make any sense

My understanding is that new apps will run natively on this machine...old OSX apps will run in emulation through Rosetta, and PC apps will run natively, including Windows...but you don't need to be running Windows to run the PC apps.

Is that not true? I'd love someone to point me to something that definitively confirms or denies this logic.

 

[rog]

Personally I don't want a Mac that runs programs 35% slower than they do on my current one. I think Apple has a ton of work to do and these new mactels are going to be a hard sell initially unless they are DP 5Ghz dual core chips or something. I'm in no hurry to ditch altivec or my classic apps. I think Apple should make sure these can run classic. I mean my G5 runs Commodore 64 software. OS9 will be a 7 year old OS by the time the PowerMac wintels ship.

 

[SLCentral]

I'm sorry, but you don't know wtf you're talking about. A P4 3.6 is blazing, however you slice it. I have a P4 3.4 ghz with 1GB DDR2-533 memory, and it's fast as hell. It blows away any PowerMac when it comes to framerate at Doom 3, along with a slew of other tasks. Probably the only thing the PowerMac would be faster at is video encoding/decoding using Altivec. Integer performance, which most apps use, rocks on this thing.

Yawn... yet another PowerPC zealot spouting FUD about the platform.

What the hell are you talking about? I'm completely for the Intel transition, and you clearly don't know my stance on the issue. The fact is that the Intel Developer Box has NO special hardware that would make it run any faster then another other x86 system in Windows, so the entire comment in the article was pointless. Windows DOES NOT run well over time even on fast machines. I've built numerous Windows systems, manage two computer hardware websites (www.slcentral.com, www.gamershell.com), and I read various computer websites daily. Blazing is a big stretch.

(Edited for grammar)

 

[Stella]

Apple should also be able to use AMD processors if it wished.

If apple design their machines correctly theoretically you should be able to change the motherboard + processor to switch between Intel and AMD and off you go.

( AMD processors can't use the same motherboards as Intel..)

Generally AMD desktop processors are cheaper and more powerful than 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.

 

[Stella]

Apple will be able to use SIMD (MMX <> SIMD - are they the same ?) which is the 'Altivec' for intel processors, so the loss of Altivec is no big deal.

I think though, that due to the lack of AltiVec, the Intel Macs won't have QUITE the same Photoshop performance. PC's struggle a bit more on that generally. But the PC's usually do simple stuff like web browsing a lot faster.


And Photoshop in Rosetta performs horribly as shown during Stevie's keynote. No AltiVec + emulation = hideous performance with the same white afterimages my PC has.

 

[Policar]

I'd like something cleared up for me....

Can these Macintels run windows apps only through emulation? that doesn't really make any sense

My understanding is that new apps will run natively on this machine...old OSX apps will run in emulation through Rosetta, and PC apps will run natively, including Windows...but you don't need to be running Windows to run the PC apps.

Is that not true? I'd love someone to point me to something that definitively confirms or denies this logic.

Nope. If you want to run Windows apps, you need Windows. MacOS X isn't magic. You can install Windows and dual boot and stuff (probably), but there's no way you'll run a Windows app in MacOS X except may with virtual PC. There's no need to point you to anything that confirms this, it's common sense. Operating systems run applications written to run on them so MacOS X by obviosity won't run Windows apps, although there's a chance they may be easier to port because of the FAT binaries.

Centrinos are amazing, by the way. Get ready to have your socks knocked off when the next laptop debuts. It will be far faster, much smaller, and have insane battery life unless Apple's product engineers totally screw it up (and they rarely do.) Performance Units are BS, but when it comes to the Yonah core (32bit and not 64bit sadly), the power consumption is truly impressive.

 

[nagromme]

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.

PowerBooks existed BEFORE PowerPC did. They ran 680x0 chips. But that's just history anyway. "Power" just means power, and it's a known product name worth keeping, no matter what the name USED to mean.

PowerMacs are more recent, but they're called "PowerMacs," not "PowerPCMacs," so there's no need to change the name. In a time of transition, I don't expect Apple will go changing things they don't have to. It would make users jittery The final "G5" of course will change

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?

That's like saying "Windows is good enough, why get a Mac at all?" But Windows isn't good enough, for a growing number of people. Even with an Apple logo on the hardware, Windows isn't good enough. It's Mac OS X that makes a Mac, not that logo on the box.

So SOME people will run Windows on Macs--it's a great last-resort option to have, and great for potential switchers/adders! But most won't--and of those who do, most will use it as little as possible. They will prefer--STRONGLY and with good reason--to use Mac OS X--and therefore buy Mac apps.

Bottom line, if you use a Windows app, you give up OS X. Worse yet, you pay the huge penalty of having to reboot--and thus no sharing workflow with your other apps--OR (with VPC) the annoyance and lost productivity of simultaneously mixing two user interfaces and two slightly different ways of working.

Then throw in the fact that you have to PAY for Windows on your Mac. And maybe for helper/installer apps to streamline the process.

So running Windows apps on a Mac is SO obviously a poor solution. People will NOT stop demanding Mac apps. In fact, the Mac market will grow--and so demand for Mac apps will INCREASE.

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!

Thanks

 

[BWhaler]

I'm still going to buy PPC when I need it for work. Buying a loaded XServe next week, and we'll continue to buy quite a few laptops since a business cannot afford to wait.

Personally, we just refreshed the family line this year--new PM D2.5, new PB 17" and a Mac mini--so I think we are in good shape for awhile.

Job situation and family economics willing, we'll update the mini first since it is pretty crippled. 512 memory, slow HD and ancient GPU is not a good combination. As for the rest, I obviously won't upgrade before the Intel move--no need really regardless of PPC and Intel--and I think the timing driver will really come down to when the speed jump is significant enough and when I am missing out on current technology...blu ray drives, modern GPU's, bigger, faster HD's, etc.

Of course, I am weak when it comes down to Apple, so who knows what I'll really do.

 

[gwangung]

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.

Well, no, because having your eggs in the same (or two) basket is a relevent criticism if you're using substantially different suppliers than other competitors in your market. If you're using the same suppliers, then the same criticism applies to you AND your competitors, and is thus no longer a means of differentiation or weakness.

 

[csjk789]

Just read over at AppleInsider that the speed of Apple's Intel Developer systems are impressing the developers, even when PowerPC programs are running under Rosetta.

With this latest bit of news, I think I just might wait until they release a Intel-based PowerBook before buying one. Who else here is planning to do the same? Anyone think this would be a bad idea? And, when do you guys/gals think we'll see the first Intel-based Macs, specifically the PB's.

I completely agree, i was about to buy a powerbook, but I'm starting to think i should wait, see what apple comes up with in the next few months. However, i read a report somewhere that said that Apple would continue making PPC for a year or two more, this would not be good... anyone have any ideas?

 

[rendezvouscp]

Wow, there's so much to this transition that my mind is almost boggled. There's a few things that I think are interesting though.

Right now, the PPC kicks ass at math-related computational problems. I believe that's the main reason why there are so many fantastic clusters using the G5. However, we're losing that with the Intel switch, which makes me wonder why Apple would go ahead and lose something like that for their customers. The transition is supposed to make things faster, not same or worse.

I can only imagine that the main solution for this is that Apple only updates their PM line once next year, and the next PM will be Intel. By then, Intel will probably have something that is comparable or faster than the PPC PM that Apple will be shipping. I really hope that Intel showed Steve something that's truly incredible, and that Intel is/will be (AMD is ahead as I see it) a true innovator in the chip market.
-Chase

 

[Eric5h5]

Sorry, but this article seems meaningless, as far as speed comparisons go. For example: 'The included version of Mac OS X for Intel takes "as little as 10 seconds" to boot to the Desktop from when the Apple logo first displays on screen.'

Is this supposed to be impressive? My dual 2.5 G5 takes 11 seconds to boot to the desktop from when the Apple logo first displays on screen, with an unmodified 10.4.1 install. With 10.3.7, it takes 18 seconds, but Tiger doesn't make my CPU go any faster, obviously. So that one second increase in booting speed with a 3.6GHz P4 could just as well be attributed to the different version of OS X as the CPU, for all we know. Or a different hard drive. Or maybe it really is slightly faster, but there's no way to tell.

(And whoever used Doom3 as a comparison is being silly: a game optimized for x86 from the beginning, compared to a version ported to PPC over several months. The developers said that if they could justify a year spent optimizing and re-writing specifically for high-end G5s, it would go twice as fast. In the real world, a 3.6GHz P4 and a 2.5GHz G5 are more or less the same speed, for most tasks, from what I've seen. So there's no way I would buy an Intel Mac until Intel chips are much faster than they are now.)

--Eric

 

[CaptainScarlet]

Nope. If you want to run Windows apps, you need Windows. MacOS X isn't magic. You can install Windows and dual boot and stuff (probably), but there's no way you'll run a Windows app in MacOS X except may with virtual PC. There's no need to point you to anything that confirms this, it's common sense. Operating systems run applications written to run on them so MacOS X by obviosity won't run Windows apps, although there's a chance they may be easier to port because of the FAT binaries.

Yes this is true, a .exe file will not run under the Mac OS X.


However, IMHO, If Virtual PC is updated/ported for MacIntel and runs natively in the new x86 environment. I bet, you will be able to run all windows software, without emulation. And that means performance!


But what the hell do I know...




CS......

 

[rendezvouscp]

I completely agree, i was about to buy a powerbook, but I'm starting to think i should wait, see what apple comes up with in the next few months. However, i read a report somewhere that said that Apple would continue making PPC for a year or two more, this would not be good... anyone have any ideas?

They won't be introducing any new Intel hardware until the beginning of next year, at the earliest. The goal is to have Intel Macs shipping by the WWDC. The transition to Intel processors in Apple's line probably won't finish until the WWDC in 2007. So, yes, Apple will continue to use the PPC in new products and it might be a good idea to buy a PB now instead of wait until an unknown date.
-Chase

 

[Peyote]

Nope. If you want to run Windows apps, you need Windows. MacOS X isn't magic. You can install Windows and dual boot and stuff (probably), but there's no way you'll run a Windows app in MacOS X except may with virtual PC. There's no need to point you to anything that confirms this, it's common sense. Operating systems run applications written to run on them so MacOS X by obviosity won't run Windows apps, although there's a chance they may be easier to port because of the FAT binaries.

Why is it obvious that OSX wouldn't run windows apps? To me it makes sense from a practical standpoint, but is it feasible from a technical standpoint? Right, obviously OSX as it exists now does not run windows apps...but if the machine can run windows natively, why can't it run windows apps natively? I.E....what's to stop Apple from developing functionality into OSX 10.5 that will run .exe files? I suppose virii could become a problem were that the case, but you are saying that OSX could not run PC apps...but if OSX is built to run on PC hardware....and Windows is built to run on PC hardware...is it really so hard to he PC apps to run under OSX?

 

[runninmac]

Personally I don't want a Mac that runs programs 35% slower than they do on my current one. I think Apple has a ton of work to do and these new mactels are going to be a hard sell initially unless they are DP 5Ghz dual core chips or something. I'm in no hurry to ditch altivec or my classic apps. I think Apple should make sure these can run classic. I mean my G5 runs Commodore 64 software. OS9 will be a 7 year old OS by the time the PowerMac wintels ship.

Thats why they told developers a year out...