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.
Macworld San Francisco 2006 Rumor Roundup
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Not hype?
Not hype? Then why does OSX 10.4 "64-bit support" not extend to GUI applications? Why only terminal apps? Any why was Apple able to ship a 10.4 update that completely disabled 64-bit support without anyone noticing until after it had shipped?
Not hype? Then why make "software play catch-up"? The DTK Intel systems that Apple sent to developers are 64-bit, but Apple's running them in 32-bit mode. Developers are making the huge effort to make the transition to Intel 32-bit, then they'll be asked to port yet again to Intel 64-bit (and deal with "even fatter binaries" that contain PPC, x86 and x64 code).
Not hype? Then why didn't Apple simply wait a few more months for Merom, and make the transition to a true 64-bit OSx64? (All 64-bit, Cocoa is 64-bit, Carbon is 64-bit, GUI is 64-bit....)
In my book, "buy it now, you'll need it in 8 years" is hype.... I agree that it will become the norm (and sooner than 5 years, because next year Vista will push 64-bit truly to the desktop), but it is also clear that Apple is saying that it's not important today.
Not hype? Clearly the fact that Apple is moving from 64-bit chips to 32-bit chips begs that question. (Even when Merom/Conroe and other lower-power consumption 64-bit capable chips arrive OSX will be 32-bit only, because OSx86 is 32-bit only and it will have to run the chips in legacy 32-bit mode.)Randall said:
Not hype? Then why does OSX 10.4 "64-bit support" not extend to GUI applications? Why only terminal apps? Any why was Apple able to ship a 10.4 update that completely disabled 64-bit support without anyone noticing until after it had shipped?
Not hype? Then why make "software play catch-up"? The DTK Intel systems that Apple sent to developers are 64-bit, but Apple's running them in 32-bit mode. Developers are making the huge effort to make the transition to Intel 32-bit, then they'll be asked to port yet again to Intel 64-bit (and deal with "even fatter binaries" that contain PPC, x86 and x64 code).
Not hype? Then why didn't Apple simply wait a few more months for Merom, and make the transition to a true 64-bit OSx64? (All 64-bit, Cocoa is 64-bit, Carbon is 64-bit, GUI is 64-bit....)
In my book, "buy it now, you'll need it in 8 years" is hype.... I agree that it will become the norm (and sooner than 5 years, because next year Vista will push 64-bit truly to the desktop), but it is also clear that Apple is saying that it's not important today.
There are two low voltage versions of the dual core Yonah, 1.5 GHz and 1.66 GHz. I think those are 15 watt typical voltage draw processors and the regualr 2 GHz Yonah are like 45 watts.
Personally, I think we are dreaming if we think a 2 GHz dual will be in the powerbook. I am betting on the 1.66 GHz. I have seen some of these new PC notebooks with dual core 2 GHz and claiming 6 hours of battery!
Skepta!!!!
Personally, I think we are dreaming if we think a 2 GHz dual will be in the powerbook. I am betting on the 1.66 GHz. I have seen some of these new PC notebooks with dual core 2 GHz and claiming 6 hours of battery!
Skepta!!!!
64-bit is for real. Remember that the G4 is 32-bit, and that Intel's roadmap will have 64-bit processors out in force in 2007. You don't need to do fat binaries if you're just going to be supporting 32-bit. It's backwards compatible. Trust me, you'll be seeing 64-bit OS X86 in the next 2 years. BTW they would still call it x86, not x64 since the architecture doesn't change.AidenShaw said:
"Porting" to 64-bit is much more trivial then the switch from PPC to x86, so it really won't be that big of a deal for the majority of software vendors.
P-P-P-Powerbook!
So, what's the word on the PowerBooks on MWSF? Do we still have to live with these outdated overpriced overfeatured laptops for even longer? They're more than a year overdue for an upgrade! The new iMacs might be faster than the PBs.
So, what's the word on the PowerBooks on MWSF? Do we still have to live with these outdated overpriced overfeatured laptops for even longer? They're more than a year overdue for an upgrade! The new iMacs might be faster than the PBs.
AidenShaw said:
Technically they are going from
32-bit (G4) to 32-bit (Core Duo)
64-bit (G5) to 64-bit (Conroe - Or Conroe is the likely candidate to replace the G5 sometime this fall.)
Os X
I think maybe Steve Jobs has lost his faith in osx-only-on-mac thing. But, the investors in Apple simply don't want to be in war with Microsoft, or somebody else. So Steve maybe just build a weak Tiger build, make it easy to crack, and say to investors: "Hey, we tried to make it secure, and not that easily to crack it, but we failed." (Of course it's BS, because he want to release officially the Tiger) And this can motive the Apple investors to save what they can, and agree with Jobs to release an official OS X for any x86 PC-s.
But this is only a rumor.
(first post, hello to all)
I think maybe Steve Jobs has lost his faith in osx-only-on-mac thing. But, the investors in Apple simply don't want to be in war with Microsoft, or somebody else. So Steve maybe just build a weak Tiger build, make it easy to crack, and say to investors: "Hey, we tried to make it secure, and not that easily to crack it, but we failed." (Of course it's BS, because he want to release officially the Tiger) And this can motive the Apple investors to save what they can, and agree with Jobs to release an official OS X for any x86 PC-s.
But this is only a rumor.
(first post, hello to all)
There better be new PowerBooks with Core Duo inside for MWSF, or "I'll execute every mother****ing last one of ya!" ~Pulp Fictionnetmonkey said:
I found this interesting over at http://www.macsimumnews.com/index.p...ompatible_with_upcoming_media_savvy_mac_mini/
4Flix.Net compatible with 'upcoming media-savvy Mac mini'
Posted on Jan 6, 2006 at 2:55am by Dennis Sellers
4Flix.Net has announced a new video download service that delivers feature-length movies, TV shows, independent films and other video content over the Internet for playback on Macs, Windows systems, and the video iPod without worrying about Digital Rights Management (DRM) restrictions, according to founder Dave Holst.
Many DRM schemes are Windows-only, but digital media content from 4Flix.Net is compatible with Mac and Unix systems, the 5G (video) iPod andthis is where it gets interestingApples upcoming media-savvy Mac mini, according to the 4Flix.Net press release. The service is
currently available for broadband subscribers worldwide here.
4Flix.Nets movie and TV show cost US$1.99 or less, pretty much the same price as videos at the iTunes Music Store. You may download purchases to your computers and then move the files freely between viewing devices, including portable media players like the video iPod and living room-based media centers such as the new media-savvy Mac mini, Holst says.
4Flix.Net compatible with 'upcoming media-savvy Mac mini'
Posted on Jan 6, 2006 at 2:55am by Dennis Sellers
4Flix.Net has announced a new video download service that delivers feature-length movies, TV shows, independent films and other video content over the Internet for playback on Macs, Windows systems, and the video iPod without worrying about Digital Rights Management (DRM) restrictions, according to founder Dave Holst.
Many DRM schemes are Windows-only, but digital media content from 4Flix.Net is compatible with Mac and Unix systems, the 5G (video) iPod andthis is where it gets interestingApples upcoming media-savvy Mac mini, according to the 4Flix.Net press release. The service is
currently available for broadband subscribers worldwide here.
4Flix.Nets movie and TV show cost US$1.99 or less, pretty much the same price as videos at the iTunes Music Store. You may download purchases to your computers and then move the files freely between viewing devices, including portable media players like the video iPod and living room-based media centers such as the new media-savvy Mac mini, Holst says.
All of Intel's current desktop and server CPUs are 64-bit today - the roadmap is for adding 64-bit laptop and low-power desktop/server chips.Randall said:
You need fat to do PPC + x86. You need "fatter" to do PPC + x86 + x64.Randall said:
You don't need "fatter" if you don't want to support the x64 64-bit ISA, but that means that you'll be slower than the people who do support x64.
A likely thing for the Steve to announce at WWDC'06, agreed.Randall said:
Actually the architecture did change, x86 has no 64-bit addressing, and fewer registers. It's called by various names (AMD64, EM64T, X86_64, ...), but I'll use x64 since that's what Sun and Microsoft use.Randall said:
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/64bit/default.mspx
http://www.sun.com/x64/
I doubt that you'd use the word "trivial" in describing porting a large 32-bit application if you've ever been involved in such a project. One cast of an int to a pointer and you're in trouble - hard to debug trouble.Randall said:
For the second, you meanSiliconAddict said:
64-bit (G5) to 64-bit Conroe running in 32-bit mode only (Conroe - Or Conroe is the likely candidate to replace the G5 sometime this fall.)
or maybe it's that you mean
64-bit (G5) running in 32-bit mode (10.4) to 64-bit (Conroe) running in 32-bit mode
since 10.4's 64-bit support is pretty lame.
AtariMac said:
It's a start up company that is just pulling info from Rumor sites to give validity to their product. I dont take much from it.
My mistake, you're correct about the architecture change.AidenShaw said:
True, the size and complexity of the program factor deeply into exactly how trivial the transition would be. However, it wouldn't be as imperative to switch "as soon as possible" to 64-bit like it is for switching to x86. Depending on consumer demands, the developers will most likely be able to ease into a transition to 64-bit. For me, I haven't done any really big software projects yet, I've been a small part in a big project, so what I am responsible for would not be too difficult to change. However I can't speak for other software developers out there, and I'm sure some cases would be a nightmare to switch to 64-bit, let alone an entirely different architecture.AidenShaw said:
What will happen after Apple gets to OS X 10.9? The X's meaning is twofold. One is the roman numeral for 10, which is the current version of Apple's OS. Two is the X in UNIX and the X windowing system (X11R6) which signifies the OS's core.Yvan256 said:
Would they call it OS 11? OS XI? OS X 11.0?
Sorry if someone posted this already, but look what O'Grady's apparently on to:
http://www.powerpage.org/archives/2006/01/exclusive_apple_plasma_displays_to_rock_mwsf.html
Now, he's been offbase recently when it comes to rumors (Apple dropping FW, BT iPod headphones, Asteroid - where's that?) but this is pretty original and intriguing.
http://www.powerpage.org/archives/2006/01/exclusive_apple_plasma_displays_to_rock_mwsf.html
Now, he's been offbase recently when it comes to rumors (Apple dropping FW, BT iPod headphones, Asteroid - where's that?) but this is pretty original and intriguing.
Randall said:
I THINK Jobs has gone on record stating that X always was and always will refer to the number. Its just Apple's wacky fanbase that call it the letter X. (Who wouldn't. Its so much slicker then 10.) So at some point it will, with great fanfare no doubt, roll over to OS 11.0: Neural Implant Edition
orion123 said:
The way it is packaged, i would not be surprised if this was planted directly by "The Source". With Google's announcements coming today Apple would seem to have a need to steer coverage a little in their favor...
Although, Plasma???? didn't we all decide that this was a no-good fad that's now on its way out?
Speaking of that I am riding Google's stock to victory! I bought in when it IPO'd at $101.50 a share. All of my friends thought I was crazy and the stock was way overvalued. They're right on both accounts. The road to $600 continues though.phi95aly said:
I just wish that I had more money to put down on it back then. Not really. He basically stole the rumor from someone named Rolo over at AI and Thinksecret. Right down to the sizes for the display, and prices. Isn't this the same guy that said apple was going to do away with firewire?orion123 said:
Just seems like a tactic to drive people to the site, after countless blogs cite this article, speculating on it's validity. He's a clown!
HDCP... no thanks, not interrested. Plasmas are no good anyway. The screen burns too easily, and it has a shorter shelf life then LCD. When I go HD, I'm either getting LCD or DLP, and it's going to be capible of showing 1080p content (even if only for Blu-ray Discs etc. 'cause broadcasters seem less then enthusiastic about useing all the extra bandwidth required for 1080p)orion123 said: