More Details on Apple's Intel Mac

[zv470]

I wonder, if we will see much more regular updates. Instead of every 7 (or so) months... updates ever 3 months? As Intel comes out with faster and faster CPUs?

 

[daver969]

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.

Here's another possible scenario: OSX on x86 = ability to run win and mac simultaneously = more curious switchers who don't have to completely give up their Windows = more marketshare for x86-macs = more people exposed to OSX = more people saying: your program would be soooo much better if it ran on OSX = more developers writing for mac. In the long run. In the short run of course developers would stop writing for mac and force people to use VirtualPC. The saving grace would be that people are faced with the obvious disparity in OS/interface quality, and start demanding OSX versions. This only works as long as Apple makes sure that X continues to be the superior OS in terms of usability and stability.

This might not work with the games, though. <option>(Many, Most, a lot of)</option> games are totally removed from the OS GUI so it doesn't really matter what platform you're playing them on. I wouldn't mind playing Doom 3 in VPC if the performance was good, it looks just the same on either machine while you're playing it. So macs might not become the new gamer's machine, but at least they wouldn't have the "but you can't get any games for it" problem.

 

[tny]

Here's a bit more...

Originally posted by John:
On the topic of the dreaded BIOS, here's an encouraging post by Dean Reece of Apple:

Quote:
We realize there are lots of folks that need to know what is going to be in the ROMs on these new machines, and what partition scheme will be used. Unfortunately, we are not yet in a position to make that information available, but we will communicate it as soon as we reasonably can. Don't assume that what you see in the transition boxes represents what will be present in the final product.

[...]

The general consensus I've heard from other developers is:
1) They don't want us to use BIOS
2) If they haven't heard of EFI, they want us to use OF
3) If they have heard of EFI, they want us to use EFI

This is not a statement about what Apple will use, just what I've heard from developers that have an opinion on the subject.

Hang in there...
- Dean

I've heard of EFI, and I'm skeptical of it.

http://www.intel.com/technology/efi/

 

[Stella]

You are so wrong, really I don't know where to begin.

Firstly, G5 and G4 processors aren't that expensive. Figures have been flown around recently to suggest in fact, G5s are cheaper than high end P4 processors ( I'm not sure about the truth of this).

Apple do not use 'specially' engineered' hardware - like graphic cards - as you quoted. Granted the logic boards and motherboards are specific to Apple.. but that is where it stops.

Apple use - run of the mill - graphic cards, ATI have some Mac and x86 specific graphic cards but they are run of the mill. Futhermore, the graphic cards that apple choose to put in the majority of their computers are cheap - these being (amongst others)- the ATI 9600, 9200, nVidia cards. These graphic cards are cheap - from meduim range to rather low end cards.

The highend optional video cards for the G5's ARE expensive. But they are optional.

Apple use standard RAM - its just that they choose to put a hefty mark up if you choose to buy it from them. There is nothing special about Apple's choice of hard disc, and the super drives are quite expensive compared to other DVD Writer combos.

I think that everyone is forgetting one very, VERY important factor here.

Macs are expensive because they use expensive CPUS, and specially engineered hardware (like video cards). With a standard and inxepensive CPU from intel, and a standard video card that doesn't cost twice as much because it was re-engineered for mac, guess what is going to happen to the price of the computers?

-Kristoffer

 

[Stella]

Shakes head in disbelief.

Apple would be a lot better off with a great deal more marketshare!!! (and don't start on viruses, viruses are manageable ).

no i don't think it should go over 6 %

 

[BlkBear]

the motherboards are even Intel stock motherboards with minor changes for (by?) Apple. So yes, OF is out, BIOS is in.

Word has it Apple is considering EFI for the production Intel-based Apples

 

[knewsom]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't running x86 hardware and software going to make it EASIER to port an APP to OSX? I mean, eventually they won't have to bother porting it to PPC... and since OSX is such an efficient and stable OS, why WOULDN'T macs become great gaming computers? I mean, I can't tell you how many times I've been playing WOW and had a party member have to drop out, reboot, and re-join, whereas I've NEVER ONCE had to do so.

I think overall this will be a positive thing. A bit of a Tyler Durdin move, possibly, but as he said in Fight Club, "I will bring you through this, kicking and screaming, and in the end, you will thank me."

 

[jeriqo]

I consider that a MAJOR advantage.

I know Apple said OS X won't be able to run on non-Apple hardware but there won't be anyway to stop it.
I personally can't wait to run it on an 8 way dual core Opteron Box instead.

Ummmm 16 processor cores witrh memory bandwidth galore
Mmmmmm me want one.

What's he point ?
Why don't you run it on a 1024 nodes Xserve cluster ?
:-/

 

[tny]

I think they also went with an Intel motherboard with integrated video (and ethernet, and sound, etc) because that way they would only have to work with Intel (who are highly motivated) to get reliable drivers ready.

They basically needed a cheap but reliable configuration that they know really well, in order to simplify the process of debugging things if a developer reports a problem. By using Intel's stuff, they make the most of their connection there, which will no doubt help them if anything hairy comes up.

The integrated board also reduced the amount of labor required to put together one of these boxes, as compared to what it would take if there were several AGP and PCI boards to install.

Now that's an insightful comment! Yes, true, sticking with Intel as the motivation for the set up of this particular box has one other thing to commend it: less chance of leaks from nVidia or ATI before the WWDC. That's one of the few things on this thread that has made sense.

 

[Mod_Edit]

Guys, give Apple more credit. This isn't a "let's hope" move. This is an absolute "what Microsoft is NOW" kind of move. Maybe, at first, It'll seem sort of "ok it's just on a new pro" kinda thing, but you can almost bet (as I have with my stock portfolio) Apple will take this to such lengths,. literally by the end of this decade WindowsOS will be in the position Apple was in all of those years.

Here's another possible scenario: OSX on x86 = ability to run win and mac simultaneously = more curious switchers who don't have to completely give up their Windows = more marketshare for x86-macs = more people exposed to OSX = more people saying: your program would be soooo much better if it ran on OSX = more developers writing for mac. In the long run. In the short run of course developers would stop writing for mac and force people to use VirtualPC. The saving grace would be that people are faced with the obvious disparity in OS/interface quality, and start demanding OSX versions. This only works as long as Apple makes sure that X continues to be the superior OS in terms of usability and stability.

This might not work with the games, though. <option>(Many, Most, a lot of)</option> games are totally removed from the OS GUI so it doesn't really matter what platform you're playing them on. I wouldn't mind playing Doom 3 in VPC if the performance was good, it looks just the same on either machine while you're playing it. So macs might not become the new gamer's machine, but at least they wouldn't have the "but you can't get any games for it" problem.

 

[knewsom]

You are so wrong, really I don't know where to begin.

Firstly, G5 and G4 processors aren't that expensive. Figures have been flown around recently to suggest in fact, G5s are cheaper than high end P4 processors ( I'm not sure about the truth of this).

Apple do not use 'specially' engineered' hardware - like graphic cards - as you quoted. Granted the logic boards and motherboards are specific to Apple.. but that is where it stops.

Apple use - run of the mill - graphic cards, ATI have some Mac and x86 specific graphic cards but they are run of the mill. Futhermore, the graphic cards that apple choose to put in the majority of their computers are cheap - these being (amongst others)- the ATI 9600, 9200, nVidia cards. These graphic cards are cheap - from meduim range to rather low end cards.

The highend optional video cards for the G5's ARE expensive. But they are optional.

Apple use standard RAM - its just that they choose to put a hefty mark up if you choose to buy it from them. There is nothing special about Apple's choice of hard disc, and the super drives are quite expensive compared to other DVD Writer combos.

YES, things like hard drives and RAM are standard. Do a Froogle search for a basic radeon card. then do the same search and add three letters: "MAC".

And as for your idea that G5's are cheaper than P4s, I seriously doubt that. Furthermore, we're not talking about pentium4 macs here, we're talking about pentium-M macs here, and M-based desktop chips. Overall, they are going to run MUCH cooler, and use LESS energy.

MEANING, apple won't have to spend as much on R&D, engineering how to cool the machine, and power supplies can be toned down, also helping to lower the cost of the machine substantially. YES, PowerMacs will still be expensive - but ANY high end well engineered PROFESSIONAL grade machine is expensive. The already affordable models like the iMac, the MacMini, and of course the portables will get MUCH more affordable. No, a powerbook isn't going to be exaclty the same price as a VAIO. But it wont' be too far off, and you'll get more bang for your buck anyways.

 

[daver969]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't running x86 hardware and software going to make it EASIER to port an APP to OSX? ...

Yeah, but it's not everything. There's also the porting of the code that deals with Window's way of doing things to OSX's way of doing things. If you don't care about optimizing at the assembly level, then the hard part has little or nothing to do with the hardware.

The place where the hardware really makes a difference is in games that have a lot of low level optimization for specific chips.

 

[~loserman~]

Boy, you've been inhaling the fumes from the AMD distortion field, haven't you?

YEP I sure have..... and Steve's too
Of course my post was tongue in cheek....
Since OS X has the worst memory subsystem of any OS on the planet.

Note that those 8 chips have 8 memory controllers, so each chip (each pair of cores) only has direct access to one bank of memory (1/8, if all banks have equal RAM)

.
Not sure I catch your drift with this statement.(are you referring to SMP kernels?)
My Dual and Quad Opteron boxes scale memory bandwidth almost perfectly.(with NUMA)

The AMD cpus unlike the INTELS at least don't have to exit the die and go to the FSB to see ea others memory. They have an internal crossbar between the cores besides hypertransport.
They are superior in every way to Intel's offering.(Intel guy thinking..."hey we can make a dual core chip! We will just take 2 Cores and throw them on the same die". Another Intel guy says " but that won't really be a dual core processor since they can't communicate with ea other". 1st Intel guy says " sshhhhhhhhh")
A dual dual core XEON based system will have to share the memory with all four cores. Talk about memory starvation.
At least with AMD's offering they will get close to twice the bandwidth.

By the way all my programs are single threaded CFD codes and we run all our Opteron Clusters with LINUX using a NUMA kernel. THATS why I smoke the AMD weed.....Instead of the Intel Crack Pipe

 

[tny]

- Game devs optimistic. "They look forward to the day they don't have to support PPC."

I read that as "Don't expect to get new games for PPC Macs much longer."

Exactly. Anyone who thinks that fat binaries will be common for new software is deluding himself. Sure, BBEdit will have a fat binary, and the first version of Office for Mac to come out after the switch, and the first version of Photoshop, and probably all the Apple software for a while - but new software from smaller third-party developers will not support the PPC after 2007. They won't bother.

I was planning on buying a PowerBook next year. Now I'm going to have to wait until the PowerBook Macintel comes out (whoever came up with this one, over Mactel, was absolutely right; it rolls off the tongue, just before the bile it instantiates), because I do not want to buy a machine that is going to be effectively obsolete 6 months after I bought it (while I can still run most OS X software on my 4 year old iBook today).

 

[daver969]

Guys, give Apple more credit. This isn't a "let's hope" move. This is an absolute "what Microsoft is NOW" kind of move. Maybe, at first, It'll seem sort of "ok it's just on a new pro" kinda thing, but you can almost bet (as I have with my stock portfolio) Apple will take this to such lengths,. literally by the end of this decade WindowsOS will be in the position Apple was in all of those years.

I *am* giving them credit, I think that as long as they make OS X a quality product they have every chance of slurping up the marketshare, and I fully expect them to continue making X a high quality product.

 

[Stella]

Ah, yes the entire package, R&D - which Apple also invested in.

I know the ATI cards do separate Mac and x86 versions ( see my last post).

apple may also engineer its own motherboards - or at least, spec it out.. thats a possibility.

My idea of G5's being cheaper than high end P4's isn't mine.

I do agree with you though - when you apply all the R&D that apple had to invest for G4 and G5, Intel will most likely work out cheaper. Also that Intel will provide apple with faster processors than IBM / Freescale would provide - given their (IBM et al )poor record.

Appleinsider has an opinion of what processors Apple *may* use for its next laptops -
http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=1123

Whatever processor it turns out to be, I think we will be all very happy

YES, things like hard drives and RAM are standard. Do a Froogle search for a basic radeon card. then do the same search and add three letters: "MAC".

And as for your idea that G5's are cheaper than P4s, I seriously doubt that. Furthermore, we're not talking about pentium4 macs here, we're talking about pentium-M macs here, and M-based desktop chips. Overall, they are going to run MUCH cooler, and use LESS energy.

MEANING, apple won't have to spend as much on R&D, engineering how to cool the machine, and power supplies can be toned down, also helping to lower the cost of the machine substantially. YES, PowerMacs will still be expensive - but ANY high end well engineered PROFESSIONAL grade machine is expensive. The already affordable models like the iMac, the MacMini, and of course the portables will get MUCH more affordable. No, a powerbook isn't going to be exaclty the same price as a VAIO. But it wont' be too far off, and you'll get more bang for your buck anyways.

 

[~loserman~]

The real reason Apple is switching to intel.

Steve want's to be able to run Longhorn on his Laptop!!!

Notice they will both be shipping at about the same time

 

[Yarvin]

Steve want's to be able to run Longhorn on his Laptop!!!

Notice they will both be shipping at about the same time

Don't you think you're being a little too optimisitic (or should I say pessimistic) about Longhorn's release date?

 

[Fukui]

Sure, BBEdit will have a fat binary, and the first version of Office for Mac to come out after the switch, and the first version of Photoshop, and probably all the Apple software for a while - but new software from smaller third-party developers will not support the PPC after 2007. They won't bother.

I dont see why not. All most small-time devs need to do is click a check box...

 

[Mod_Edit]

Oops

I *am* giving them credit, I think that as long as they make OS X a quality product they have every chance of slurping up the marketshare, and I fully expect them to continue making X a high quality product.

Sorry, I meant the "games" part of your quote, and wasn't meaning it to be a b*tchy statement.

 

[daver969]

Sorry, I meant the "games" part of your quote, and wasn't meaning it to be a b*tchy statement.

ah, yeah, i see what you mean. I expect Apple wants lots more games to be ported, too, and they'll prob. do a lot to help make that happen. In the end, though, it's up to the developers to decide to do it, and if there doesn't seem to be much difference between an x86 OSX game and an x86 Win game they might not bother, esp. if people can just play it in 'emulation' on the Win side.

 

[Hugh]

Yes, not using Address book and Mail.app will help. Just like not using outlook or outlook express on windows helps.

But the usage is more than common, it is the standard on the mac. Even if you and your friends don't use it. I am just stating it will be a useful infection vector.

As to the intel stuff. It is about buffer overflows on x86 processors. but you probably did miss the point

I'm sure that Apple will or most likely already addressed that problem, so I didn't see that as a risk. (Yes I know, there are always risks.)

-Hugh

 

[netsql]

You have both

Customer: You have both BSD based (OSx) or Linux OS support? Which is faster?
Sales: Linux.
Cust: ok, Make mine Linux. I can still VMWare Windoze or BSD (OSx).

.V
ps: is the integrated graphics VGA or DVI?

 

[iMeowbot]

Exactly. Anyone who thinks that fat binaries will be common for new software is deluding himself. Sure, BBEdit will have a fat binary, and the first version of Office for Mac to come out after the switch, and the first version of Photoshop, and probably all the Apple software for a while - but new software from smaller third-party developers will not support the PPC after 2007. They won't bother.

That's not the way any architecture or OS change has happened, in the little Apple universe or anywhere else. The smaller devs are the ones who will take "forever" to get onto the new architecture. Those are the ones who haven't got around to migrating to Xcode, and don't have budgets to spend on all the latest and greatest Macs. They'll still be offering only PowerPC binaries and you'll be screaming at them to get with the times.

 

[dicklacara]

Steve want's to be able to run Longhorn on his Laptop!!!

Notice they will both be shipping at about the same time

Hey Loserman ... long time no, whatever.

I read somewhere that OS X Server couldn't compare to Linux because it does a sucky job creating threads....

Was that one of your issues?

Did you ever convert to Linux?

What do you think of ditch & switch?

Dick