More Details on Apple's Intel Mac

[spinko]

From my point of view as a developer there is no reason to wish a "fast death" to the PPC. Clean design makes software very independent of the cpu and I have also coded on other cpus (including 68k).

If you need a really good computer *now* I think you should still by a G5. They won't explode when the Intels are out and there is no reason for a developer to loose customers by not making it work on ppc. The extra time you have to invest is *nothing* compared to total development time. PPC Macs (esp. G5 based Macs) are still great computers an they will be great computers in the next years....

exactly, why would Mr. Jobs want to phase out the PPC is beyond me. Have OSX run on two platforms is good and makes Apple less dependant. Bearing in mind that MS is launching a gaming computer with the latest PPC's inside, in huge numbers that should bring prices down and push acceptance up... ? I really don't understand the underlying logic or strategy to this... First flame Intels then adopt them ?? there's something wrong with this decision..

 

[jiggie2g]

All this talk about OSX getting hacked to work on standard Comps is an over reaction.

Yes, I believe with in a few Months or maybe less OSX will be hacked and on bittorrent. All the PC Geeks will be running OSX on Dells , and Custom PC's.

This is not going to hurt Apple. Clones will hurt Apple. If Dell or HP were to under sell Apple (very likely) with thier own Boxes running OSX then Apple would be in serious crap. Apple can only get hurt in the Retail market and no company will run OSX with out Apple's permission.

I say let the Geeks have thier way, let them do the work for Apple. The more people using OSX the less are using XP. They will switch for us and get others to do the same.This is how Linux got popular to begin with.

Bottom Line ...Geeks using bootleg OSX on junk box PC hurts Apple about as much as boot leg DVD's and CD's hurt the Entertainment Industry. Yeah It's a bother but no one's going to the poor house anytime soon.

 

[steeldrivingjon]

and now for some proof, pick up your Cell Workstation at linuxtag (its hardly suprising that its a linux workstation IBM loves linux )

There's a big difference between a prototype displayed at a conference and something that can be produced in volume, supported, and improved at regular intervals.

It remains to be seen if the Cell is viable for Apple's needs, in terms of speed, heat dissipation, future improvement, etc.

If, a few years down the road, the Cell proves itself to be a viable long-term platform that beats Intel, then Apple can consider moving to it. It shouldn't be very difficult after the Intel switch is over.

 

[pont]

"the thing is fast"

I wish i had a cell chip, that thing would be even faster

 

[SiliconAddict]

Well, I know from personal experience that you can format and install a fresh retail version of XP on an brand new HP laptop. I've done it.

That's one thing I can't stand about PC laptops: all of the junk that comes pre installed! I hope Apple never does that.

Highlighted for relevance. A retail version is not branded.
Apple won't have to because they provide everything in their OS. This is one thing MS simply can't do. They've tried it before and got slapped with anticompetitive...well you know the rest. Anytime MS enters a market everyone screams anticompetitive business. Of course you that reaction is simply a result of their previous behavior. You reap what you sew.

 

[pont]

There's a big difference between a prototype displayed at a conference and something that can be produced in volume, supported, and improved at regular intervals.

Oh, I thought this tread was about a prototype displayed at a conference


btw

which premieres at Linuxtag 2005.

prototyoes don't premiere ? do they ?

 

[x_knyght]

Cool

It would be nice just to have Windows running on Mac hardware so I could just play games on. Save a lot of money not buying Mac games that's released two years after the PC version.

 

[pont]

It would be nice just to have Windows running on Mac hardware so I could just play games on. Save a lot of money not buying Mac games that's released two years after the PC version.

or buy a PC and save even more

 

[kester]

It would be nice just to have Windows running on Mac hardware so I could just play games on. Save a lot of money not buying Mac games that's released two years after the PC version.

I'm sure Microsoft would love for you to install Windows on your Mac.

 

[excession]

if Apple starts putting the same CPU in Mac's that PC's are using, then the distinction which makes Apple what it is today, will be forever blurred into nothingness

So what you're saying is that if you booted a Dell with an Intel CPU running XP beside a Apple with a PPC CPU running OS X, your impression of the only distinction would be the CPU?

And then that if you did the same experiment, but with that same Apple (but now containing an Intel CPU) you feel the distinction between the two would then blur into nothing?

Oh, brother...

 

[tdewey]

or buy a PC and save even more

Umm. Do you ever say anything that is even remotely constructive or on po(i)nt?

 

[pont]

Umm. Do you ever say anything that is even remotely constructive or on po(i)nt?

Hah, thats a good one, No really, It is...
I guess my POINT is who would buy overpriced Apples if they have less proformance then your homemade/dell box (everyone seems to be talking about dell)

and my other main point I guess, is that Apple couldn't get there hands on a cell chip if there life depended on it, Its just the way it goes... IBM wont be putting my effort into developing the old PowerPC's Apple can see that and THAT is why they are changing Arch, not because the cell is produced just for gaming machines or that games will run better because its not a powerpc (geesh did you just spot a contradiction in the artical)

 

[kester]

Hah, thats a good one, No really, It is...
I guess my POINT is who would buy overpriced Apples if they have less proformance then your homemade/dell box (everyone seems to be talking about dell)

Less performance?? What are you talking about? Do you have a time machine?

 

[pont]

You show me a Mac I can buy for the same price as my duel opterons and beat it

 

[chibianh]

You show me a Mac I can buy for the same price as my duel opterons and beat it

IMO, I've already won because I'm using OSX.

 

[sirjimithy1]

iTunes 4 is not Carbon, it is OS X only.

 

[pont]

IMO, I've already won because I'm using OSX.

Speed wise I have, Im using Linux (and i know that runs faster since my macs run both)

 

[tdewey]

Hah, thats a good one, No really, It is...
I guess my POINT is who would buy overpriced Apples if they have less proformance then your homemade/dell box (everyone seems to be talking about dell)

and my other main point I guess, is that Apple couldn't get there hands on a cell chip if there life depended on it, Its just the way it goes... IBM wont be putting my effort into developing the old PowerPC's Apple can see that and THAT is why they are changing Arch, not because the cell is produced just for gaming machines or that games will run better because its not a powerpc (geesh did you just spot a contradiction in the artical)

(1) Unfortunately it is difficult to make true Apple to Apple (pun intended) comparions at this time. I (and I think Apple) will be happty to make the Mactel to Wintel comparison in 1Q '06. I have no doubt that an application running on MacOS/Yonah will best the performance of the same application running on WinXP/Yonah.


(2) The main problem with your claim regarding the Cell processor is that even if I accept your argument that when it is released it is the best processor on the market (Q1-Q2 next year? earlier?) it will be unable to hold pole position for very long. By Q4 2006/Q1 2007 Intel processors should be out that meet or exceed its performance. So even if Apple is able to overcome the problems with using a special purpose chip as a general purpose chip it still ends up with a performance brick wall.

(3) And exactly where is the Cell processor for notebooks?

Edit:

Oh my goodness, what am I doing? I've fallen for an obvious trollllllllllllllllllllll! Sorry everyone, I shall go do penance.

 

[Quartz Extreme]

I don't completly agree with you there, I think you will find that darwin supports a hell of a lot of hardware, the only real drivers your going to have real problems with is gfx

I read a little while ago that Darwin had limited x86 hardware support, but perhaps things have changed since then...

Either way, I just don't think it would be the right timing for a boxed release of Mac OS X for any x86 machine.

 

[matznentosh]

The reason to use integrated graphics in this developement platform seems pretty obvious to me.

1. Apple makes no graphics drivers or cards.
2. Intel does. But they only do integrated graphics.
3. Jobs didn't want too many manufacturers "in the loop" too early.

I'd guess iBook and Mac mini (or whatever low end systems Apple ships this time next year)
might use integrated graphics. High end no way, but adequate. Even enough to play games
at crappy resolutions and low quality.

No, I think it's simpler that that.

1. ATI and NVidia haven't had a chance yet to write drivers for OSSX/Intel

2. Apple wants developers to program using high order API's, not low level stuff; that way hardware can be switched around as needed as time goes by with less reprogramming necessary. So they would offer a vanilla system and expect developers to write code that could be used on that basic system or on up to high end (speaking about graphic cards now) systems.

However, I cringe but do not disagree that the low end macs could use integrated Intel graphics for cost savings. Yuck.

 

[hulugu]

Ummmm, they already make PC's (personal computer) A mac is amac becasue of the software not the hardware, get a grip. Sheesh

Not true, a Mac is a Mac because of the confluence of hardware and software. Open Firmware was a great example of this, using target disk mode, getting just the happy mac and the light blue screen, rather than lines and lines of system tests all of which can be easily hosed if you just hit the right key at the right time. I don't want a BIOS, I want my OF, damnit!

If Apple can deliver all the advantages of Intel: faster chips, better graphics cards, with none of the disadvantages of the BIOS—how I spit at thee!—or Intel integrated graphic cards—gah!—than we might have a successful transition. That is if Apple can also keep the transition from wrecking hardware sales and if Intel's baked-on-the-chip DRM doesn't become the end of Apple's current dodging of all the wonderful media DRM we keep hearing about.

This whole thing, frankly, scares the bejeezus out of me, there's lots of risk. I wish IBM would suddenly go back to Apple with a new road-map of PowerPC chips that are as good as Intel so we don't have to deal with this transition.
This has to be the worst WWDC ever! No new hardware, no new software, just one big scary dangerous change. And, now we're friends with Intel!? Intel!? And people might be able to run Windows on a Mac! What!?
I buying stock in North Face, all the damned in hell must be feeling a breeze.

 

[tdewey]

Not true, a Mac is a Mac because of the confluence of hardware and software. Open Firmware was a great example of this, using target disk mode, getting just the happy mac and the light blue screen, rather than lines and lines of system tests all of which can be easily hosed if you just hit the right key at the right time. I don't want a BIOS, I want my OF, damnit! .

I highly, highly doubt a Phoenix BIOS will be in the released Mactel.


T

 

[Frobozz]

Minor highlights:
- Pentium 4 660 at 3.6GHz, but will not be used in the shipping product (of course, since the high end Intel-Mac is 2 years away)
- DDR-2 RAM at 533. SATA-2.
- Presently uses the Intel GMA 900 integrated graphics chip set which supports Quartz Extreme.
- Regular video cards will be supported, but need drivers
- No Open Firmware. Uses Phoenix BIOS.

Aside from the crappy graphics, this is identical to the PC I bought 9 months ago. So, really, this is a fairly mid/high level consumer PC. But i seriously doubt what you see today will even remotely resemble the future Macs.

I bought the PC for testing webpages and running PC only 3D applications. It turns out it is an excellent game machine, too. However, I only use it for the above reasons. WinXP is a world better than previous incarnations but it can't hold a candle to Mac OS X.

My next mac was likely to be a PowerBook. Now, with the Dual Core Pentium M being a likely forerunner for the PB in early '06, I'm not sure if I should buy now. As for a PowerMac, I don't think there's any reason to second guess an upgrade. PowerPC will be there to stay for probably 1.5 to 2 years.

 

[matznentosh]

This is what will happen

1. Prices will stay the same (relative to Dell)
2. A few graphics cards supported
3. Windows will run on macs, thus games will run
4. "Reboot into windows" will be the new tech support answer to any Mac problem
5. All third party OS X software development will stop, no more Mac versions of games
6. Microsoft will release "Vendetta" which runs MacIntel apps in Windows
7. OS X goes bye-bye

# 7 is what I'm afraid of. Don't forget NEXT bombed after Steve sent it to multiple platforms, and was dead for all intents and purposes until it was bought back, by Steve. Don't forget OS/2.

Why bother to write software for the Mac when you could fire up Windows on the same computer and use the Windows version? First to go would be the games, definitely not worth the cost to port, just fire up Windows. Then would go the productivity software. Adobe going the extra mile for OSX? Why not just fire up Windows.

Don't say this is not possible. This is exactly what happened with OS/2. OS/2 was a superior operating system, without the horrible DOS ancestry. It was good enough to run Windows software. So did developers go to the trouble of writing programs to take advantage of the better operating system? No.

 

[Quartz Extreme]

Now, this may be a long shot, but I had a thought...

What if this on-chip DRM that Intel was talking about was what Apple would use to prevent Mac OS from running on other PCs?