Home > Apple > A first look at Apple’s Intel Mac A first look at Apple’s Intel Mac Eugenia Loli 2005-06-23 Apple 83 Comments Apple’s Intel-based Mac development kits have started trickling into developer’s hands, Think Secret has learned. Elsewhere, CodeWeavers CrossOver to support Intel-based Macs. About The Author Eugenia Loli Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker. Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli 83 Comments 2005-06-23 1:21 am Anonymous If the system was running macos X why is there not a picture of it running? I mean there is one of it running windows xp…… 2005-06-23 1:25 am Anonymous I’m very happy about this change in general. I will now be able to run Windows XP, Ubuntu, and Mac OS X Tiger on one machine, probably a sleek, beautifully designed Apple one. 2005-06-23 1:27 am Anonymous Probably because it’s likely that Apple has someone marked each development machine with some kind of (secret) and unique identifier. For example, a tiny and unnoticable difference in the background image of the desktop would be a good place to start. That way, if someone leaks info to an insider web mag like Think Secret, Apple can know who did it and fire them. I’m suspicious that “Barracuda” might be such a code-word, attached to the motherboard (with a different one for each motherboard), so maybe they are caught already 2005-06-23 1:32 am Anonymous If the system was running macos X why is there not a picture of it running? I mean there is one of it running windows xp…… Because everyone has seen it running Mac OS X at the keynote videostream of the WWDC. We KNOW that it runs Mac OS X, it a friggin’ Mac. We don’t need to reassure that. What would be the point of this box being a developer machine for the sole purpose of porting software to Mac OS X on intel if it wouldn’t run OS X? 2005-06-23 1:36 am Anonymous “I’m very happy about this change in general. I will now be able to run Windows XP, Ubuntu, and Mac OS X Tiger on one machine, probably a sleek, beautifully designed Apple one.” And I’m very happy that I have a single operating system that meets all of my computing needs. 2005-06-23 1:46 am Anonymous The codeweavers development may sound good at first but listen: if it works why would any company port any software the mac? “Oh just use CodeWeavers/VMWare”. Bummer. 2005-06-23 1:52 am Anonymous What if they install the normal open source x86 darwin, and then try and copy over Aqua & Co. from the Developer CD — would that work?! 2005-06-23 1:55 am Anonymous Unless of course your needs are that you enjoy playing with and experimenting with multiple operating systems. I should add that BeOS and AROS will also be running on that machine. 2005-06-23 1:56 am Anonymous I really hope that Cross-over doesn’t become the only solution to run Windows apps on Macintel. It’s just a piece of shite. I really find it amusing that these Linux software companies are all of a sudden seeing $$$ signs because of Apple. It just goes to show that they have no faith in Linux market. Codeweavers tries to wrap itself in the GPL/FLOSS flag but then behaves like your typical closed source company. I really hope Microsoft and Apple work together to provide a proper solution and really shutdown these wannabes. 2005-06-23 1:58 am Anonymous “And I’m very happy that I have a single operating system that meets all of my computing needs.” As do I. I use OS X 90% of the time for all of my work, but I still screw with Linux and Windows the other 10% if the time. Not because I need to but because I can. Geek curiosity. If I had to just choose one. I’d take OS X and run with it. 2005-06-23 1:59 am Anonymous >What if they install the normal open source x86 darwin, and >then try and copy over Aqua & Co. from the Developer CD — >would that work?! Probably not. We all know that Windows Genuine Advantage authentication is unbreakable, why would you assume that Apple would put out something less secure than Microsoft? 2005-06-23 2:13 am Anonymous Could we see a 1 chip clean room ‘mac compatible’ pc as was done in the eary 1980’s? Re: We all know that Windows Genuine Advantage authentication is unbreakable, why would you assume that Apple would put out something less secure than Microsoft? slashdot.org Microsoft Genuine Advantage Cracked http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/06/22/2221254&tid=109&tid=99 2005-06-23 2:28 am Anonymous What in tranation are you babbling about? What companies? What dollar signs? How is CodeWeaver deciding to support MacOS X a sign they don’t have faith in the Linux market? Heck, what’s the point of writing a standards-compliant OS and portable software if you don’t port it? 2005-06-23 2:40 am Anonymous They should take advantage of the lack of legacy support and make things like fixing the problems in other X86 ABIS (like the problem with passing data between SSE and X87 registers which slow down floating point aritmethic) or make SSE3 the minimum common denominator and optimize the system with it. 2005-06-23 2:48 am Anonymous So it’ll run on a P4 3.6ghz w/1GB of RAM. At that point, when comparing the prices of PC hardware vs Mac hardware, there’ll be no more comparing ‘apples to oranges’, since they’ll be running the same hardware Mac people have always argued that Mac hardware is not overpriced – I guess now we’re gonna find out. If it is overpriced (and I’m sure it will be knowing Apple), best to wait until somebody hacks OSX to run on ‘generic’ PC hardware, then you can REALLY get a computer for half the price 2005-06-23 3:00 am Anonymous i agree 100% but what about adding AMD64 as well? those extra registers should come in handy 2005-06-23 3:01 am Anonymous Ok, it’s time for a new comunity around x86 darwin to port(if possible) the BSD device drivers. You know, for testing purposes. 2005-06-23 3:03 am Anonymous I want a Mac with green leds and 2 video cards in SLi!!!1! 2005-06-23 3:16 am Anonymous It’s like every other story on OSnews is Mac on crack^H^H^H^H^Hintel. I am bored with this story alredy. 2005-06-23 3:19 am Anonymous I want a Mac with green leds and 2 video cards in SLi!!!1! Pretty controversial whish. Is that why you posted from an anonymizer? 🙂 2005-06-23 3:22 am Anonymous You can build a computer with a top of the line P4, graphics, sound card, motherboard, case, and powersupply for only 600 bucks!!! Thats amazing, dude you should start a business with that. I would def. give you 600 bucks if you can get me a computer like that, cause I build my own computers and can never come out that good on 600 bucks. 2005-06-23 3:24 am Anonymous “As for installing Mac OS X on non-Apple hardware, attempts to boot from the included Mac OS X for Intel disc resulted in an error message on both a Dell and off-brand PC. The message states that the hardware configuration is not supported by Darwin x86. Sources have indicated that Apple will employ an EDID chip on the motherboard of Intel-based Macs that Mac OS X will look for and must handshake with first in order to boot. Such an approach, similar to hardware dongles, could theoretically be defeated, although it’s unknown what level of sophistication Apple will employ.” Welcome to the brave new world of DRM kiddies. Cheap intel Macs? yeah, right. 2005-06-23 3:27 am Anonymous I have yet to see the encription/DRM/whatever scheme released to the public that whitstanded cracking… I suppose it wouldn’t take long before mods will appear. 2005-06-23 3:31 am Anonymous sorry for the typo and bad conjugation… I’m tired.. s/encription/encryption/ s/withstanded/withstood/ 2005-06-23 4:06 am Anonymous Well you must make your hardware purchases at bestbuy, because I could easily meet those cash requirements for a decent P4 based machine. Of course if I built it for $600, you’d have to pay $750 Aside, the pictures of the inside of the machine don’t look too impressive. Given, this isn’t the final product, but the cooling and footprint can give you a decent idea of it’s performance. It would have been great if they would have run benchmarks for XP on it. 2005-06-23 4:42 am Anonymous lets take a break from the mac on intel stuff. its a while in the making yet. it’ll be interesting when the stuff is actually out. oh, and $600 for a high end pc? seriously, a “high-end” P4 is $300+. more for dual-core. “high-end” is more than just the chip. try using a good motherboard, a real sound card, a good hard drive, a good power supply and case, a decent video card and reliable memory. yes, you can meet the $600 requirement, but it will NOT be as nice as you try to convince us it is. 2005-06-23 4:59 am Anonymous “Probably not. We all know that Windows Genuine Advantage authentication is unbreakable, why would you assume that Apple would put out something less secure than Microsoft?” lol, we are talking about Microsoft security 😉 http://www.techtree.com/techtree/jsp/article.jsp?article_id=4500&ca… 2005-06-23 5:16 am Anonymous The machines are using this motherboard: http://www.intel.com/cd/channel/reseller/ijkk/jpn/products/box_desk… Which means, if you want to really run OS X on a PC, or get yourself a clone of the Mac dev system, you might want to buy that board and build a PC around it and see if OS X (the dev version) will install on it. 2005-06-23 5:49 am Anonymous I’d have a Mac laptop right now if is wasn’t for the price. I can get a Mac right now with basically the same specs (iBook G4 1.33 256M 14.1″ vs pavilion AthlonXP 1500 512M 14.1″) as my current laptop for the same price, $1650 CAN. Except I bought my laptop two years ago. 2005-06-23 5:57 am Anonymous “Aside, the pictures of the inside of the machine don’t look too impressive. Given, this isn’t the final product, but the cooling and footprint can give you a decent idea of it’s performance. It would have been great if they would have run benchmarks for XP on it.” Ther only thing they give you an idea of is performance on an early version of OS X on Intel running on very early hardware. Moron. 2005-06-23 6:15 am Anonymous for apple to make os x run only on emt64/amd64 100% legacy free systems with EFI bios? 2005-06-23 6:16 am Anonymous “What is it that sucks noob. no viruses or spyware or is it that ease of use and stability that sucks for you?” Please refrain from refering to someone as a noob when you run OSX. Does everyone that runs x86 have to be a Windows user. I for one don’t look forward to Apple bringing their closed system framework over to the PC marketplace. I for one will only buy a system from them when they license the software to a third party builder. Buying directly from the manufacturing gives them to much control over your support options, this is not acceptable in the business world. I have an uncle who has shares in Intel. He is upset by the move. Many view this as desperation by Intel to compete with Amd, which currently has a superior product. It is unlikely that Intel will ever be superceded by AMD, but given that their lineup does not really begin to take form until late 06, one can never be sure. From what I understand Intel has had a number of manufacturing problems with the current new architecture, the dual core Pentium-d, which is inferior to the AMD x2. 2005-06-23 6:30 am Anonymous Dan, it’s not to late for anything, apple hasn’t shipped anything yet. Apple clearly states this box in no way represents production stuff, it’s simply a intel box that runs OS X and nothing more. They just hacked a intel mobo in a G5 case and probably put some form of software lock to make it only work on them. Apple has not decided on the firmware, but made it pretty clear it won’t be BIOS, if one was to guess, it will be EFI, or Openfirmware, most likely EFI. secondly, they have implied heavily that they are heading towards 64 bit pentium M based chips. These from reports won’t be out for the first intel macs, so they will be 32 bit, but since the first intel macs will be laptops which still are 32 bit, it’s no big deal. When G6 powermacs come out, they will be 64 bit. Also in Intels docs, they make clear when they say x86, it just means intel. not that they are only going 32 bit. If you say WWDC (like walked past the building) the shear number of 64 bit signs would tell you they aren’t going back to 32 bit. If apple has made any mistake with the switch so far, it’s that they have not made clear what the procs will be, if they will be 64 bit across the board, what the firmware will be and such, so people start thinking wrong things, like these boxes represent production hardware. Clearly apple will not be using straight Pentium 4s in their boxes. If they do, lord help them. 2005-06-23 6:47 am Anonymous i think that a 64-bit mac os x running on a 64-bit native amd64/emt64 with EFI would increase its reliability and allow cloners to build systems that provide good user experience. 2005-06-23 6:54 am Anonymous Well, if any of the proud owners of the Macintel systems want to get their shiny new OS X86 to run on beige boxes, a hex dump of the BIOS on that mobo and the boot section of the CD would help move things right along. The El Torito standard (used to make CD’s bootable) is a publically available and well understood standard, so the hackers know where to start on cracking the CD. Knowing the contents of the BIOS would also allow the hackers to tell if Apple’s already put the hardware DRM in, and how to circumvent it. Not like the developers really want to do that, but if they did, you know, it’d be really helpful. 2005-06-23 6:54 am Anonymous Remember, Apple still has to factor in the cost of devloping their own OS and all that goes into it. Apple still uses higher quality components in their hardware (Custom designed all aluminum cases. Etc.) I’m sure since Apple will no longer have to cooling zones and 9 fans in the G5 they will be a little cheaper. But Apple still has more overhead than all the PC oems. 2005-06-23 7:00 am Anonymous i think that a 64-bit mac os x running on a 64-bit native amd64/emt64 with EFI would increase its reliability and allow cloners to build systems that provide good user experience. – Dan Yes . Better yet, a Athlon 64 X2. Steve is looking for a performance per watt thing. Hence, my idea of a Penitum M 64-bit chip. 2005-06-23 7:18 am Anonymous I’m gambling that Apple is expecting to keep profit margins up by keeping return/repair rates extremely low by using quality components from whichever vendor can provide them. 2005-06-23 8:12 am Anonymous I’m not sure I like the DRM implication of the new motherboard but I can understand the need for it… it’s the wider use that has me worried. I appreciate the people who can mount SUSE 9.0 for 600 bucks on a frisbee that’s modified with the innards of a coke dispenser and the price is certainly sexy enough. But then again, who is going to support that adorable mongrel? And can you find a driver for it? The other signs that I’m reading: Linux users who actually want to get on with the job, seem far more likely as a success factor. In the end there is only so much joy to be had from spending 3 days trying to configure the network card settings. As an exercise in curiosity that’s certainly commendable but I just can’t spend that kind of time on configuration anymore. I gave up chess because it’s a monstrous time hog. The price point should definitely come down since the components will be mass-produced [on a larger scale than IBM did] and it will be a good idea to attract new users to the platform. Although, if they’re going to bitch and whine that things look a tad different than Windows, you know, that could be a real headache. 2005-06-23 8:54 am Anonymous “Apple has not decided on the firmware, but made it pretty clear it won’t be BIOS, if one was to guess, it will be EFI, or Openfirmware, most likely EFI. secondly,” Apple has clearly stated that they won’t use OpenFirmware. 2005-06-23 8:56 am Anonymous The motherboard in these photos look very much like a motherboard from Intel… 2005-06-23 9:01 am Anonymous I find your lack of faith… DISTURBING! 2005-06-23 11:03 am Anonymous Will there be a mini mactel version? 2005-06-23 11:05 am Anonymous “Why in the world would somebody want to boot Microseft on a Mac is beyond me. It’s pretty sad that they abandoned a well engineered cpu like the G5 to go with the register-starved stack-based proprietary Intel Pentio space heater.” Why did anybody want to make an XBox run Linux? Why would anybody want to create a UNIX-like OS in the first place? Why climb mountains, hike up hills and moors? I think you’ll find it’s in part because people want to, to do something different or even to fill a need. Did it ever occur to you that some folks might want to dual-boot one of these machines? I for one use both a Mac and a Windows machine – to be able to throw one of em away (well into a cupboard at least) would clear a decent portion of desk space. Granted, there’s emulation but for 3D-acceleration, it sucks so running stuff natively is sometimes the only option. The G5, whilst it may be “a well engineered cpu”, at the same equivalent speeds, the G5 is a much more efficient “space heater”, or so I’ve read. Next time, when engaging in zealotry, it might be worthwhile thinking before posting… 2005-06-23 11:09 am Anonymous Lets take a break from the mac on intel stuff. its a while in the making yet. Good idea. Of course, it’s coming a lot sooner than Longhorn, so let’s not hear any more about that either. 2005-06-23 11:26 am Anonymous Creating a Unix clone is actually useful (read: Linux and *BSDs serve a purpose). Booting Linux on your Xbox is interesting and can be useful too (MythTV for example). Running the proprietary Microseft system on Mac hardware is completely useless. Had Apple gone with the Opteron I would almost agree with their decision. Instead they’ve decided to adopt a processor well known for being a piece of shit. 2005-06-23 11:48 am Anonymous BBlalock wrote: “>What if they install the normal open source x86 darwin, and >then try and copy over Aqua & Co. from the Developer CD — >would that work?! Probably not. We all know that Windows Genuine Advantage authentication is unbreakable…” Yeah. Right. Read this: http://inhome.rediff.com/money/2005/jun/21ms.htm 2005-06-23 11:53 am Anonymous Running the proprietary Microseft system on Mac hardware is completely useless. Really? In my business it will save me thousands. I write plug-ins for 3D software that runs on Mac and PC. Customer base is about 1/3 Mac and 2/3 PC. Both sets tend to run dual processor machines so I can’t get away with testing or debugging on low end hardware either side. To support my customers I end up buying two relatively high end machines every 2-3 years, now I will only have to buy one. I look forward to being able to dual boot between OSX and Windows. Even better would be a new version of Wine or Virtual PC that lets me run the PC versions at near native speed seamlessly with access to both processors, but that’s just dreaming right now. I also know lots of graphics folks that must keep a PC and Mac running for various tools that only are available on one platform. This significantly drops the cost of entry for a developer or artist into that kind of business. 2005-06-23 12:09 pm Anonymous The solution is very simple, don’t support niche operating systems. Microseft only runs on x86, has zero interoperability with Unix environments and no advantages. Don’t bother supporting it. 2005-06-23 12:31 pm Anonymous 1: What filesystem does OSX on Intel use? It’s well known that OSX has read-write support for FAT32, but its normally installed on HFS+ in a Mac 2: How does OSX boot? Any possibility of using one boot manager that can play nice with both OSX and XP? I ask as dual-booting linux with XP is not easy even now, and OSX is unlikely to use GRUB or LILO 2005-06-23 12:46 pm Anonymous 1) You cannot say Apple will use a piece of shit, the processors Apple will use aren’t out yet, and they definitely won’t be pieces of shit (Yonah, Roscoe and what again ?). I wouldn’t trust you as a CEO for any firm. You ask someone to stop supporting 2/3 of his market ? You say it’s a simple solution ? 2005-06-23 1:19 pm Anonymous The solution is very simple, don’t support niche operating systems. Microseft only runs on x86, has zero interoperability with Unix environments and no advantages. Don’t bother supporting it. And cut off 2/3rds my revenue, that would be just plain silly. It’s wonderful that you have passion about your OSs, but most of the world and 2/3rds my customers use Windows, hardly niche, and I like to sell them stuff! 2005-06-23 1:21 pm Anonymous It isn’t just osnews, I see comments that sound like what my brothers wrote when they were like 13 posted on most sites. Honestly, we are talking about COMPUTERS, people. I don’t understand this ‘fanboy’ stuff. Do what you want to do, but if your ego is somehow bruised by other stuff, you have issues. Anyway, I look forward to this. I use OS X, Windows, and then Linux at work. But, if Windows keeps up w/the validation and WGA stuff at some point they may frustrate me a bit too much. That being said, these dev machines aren’t anything like what the final boxes will be, of course. And in response to an earlier post, SSE3 is the target for SIMD and FPU stuff for x86 on the Mac if you go by the programming docs. 2005-06-23 2:06 pm Anonymous 1) BIOS: Currently, the Intel Mac dev kits are using a Phoenix BIOS, so no EFI or Open Firmware at this point. Of course this fact says nothing about the future of the Intel Mac (I refuse to use those silly contractions). Read more about that here: http://www.expert-zone.com/index.php?module=announce&ANN_user_op=vi… 2) Filesystem: it’s most definitely HFS+. Filesystems are not tied to architectures, so there’s really no reason why OSX for X86 would not use HFS+. 3) Pricing: Don’t expect Intel Macs to suddenly be cheap all of a sudden. Apple is not magically paying less per Intel processor than they paid per IBM processor. There’s even a slight chance that they’re epaying more, as IBM was giving Apple huge price cuts. Other components are not somehow more expensive for PPC than for X86. The casing will not be cheaper either. In other words: X86 Macs *will not be substantially cheaper than current PPC Macs.* 2005-06-23 2:10 pm Anonymous Never bashed AMD……just Intel. And yes, Intel does still suck. Apple is going with them not because it’s a better chip, but because IBM tried to screw them over. The PowerPC is, and always will be a better designed architecture than Intel’s offerings. As for AMD, I keep hearing over and over again from our Dell rep that if AMD would actually get their act together and make more fabs to produce more chips they’d start selling AMD based systems – same argument with Apple. 2005-06-23 3:01 pm Anonymous I only hope my next Mac will not have the “Intel Inside” stigma attached to it. That would be entirely too much to bear. Have a heart! 2005-06-23 3:41 pm Anonymous Mac users are weird. I don’t think you’d see your average PC user bellyaching this much if Dell switched to PowerPC — as long as it was faster and cheaper, they’d be happy. 2005-06-23 3:47 pm Anonymous Mac users are weird. I don’t think you’d see your average PC user bellyaching this much if Dell switched to PowerPC — as long as it was faster and cheaper, they’d be happy. Maybe that’s because “your average PC user” knows fcuk all about computer internals? A friend of mine, who has an iBook but is computer illiterate, indeed didn’t care one bit about this switch when I told him. If Dell were to switch to PPC, the computing world would be in much more turmoil than with this Apple/Intel deal. I mean, Dell would have to start selling Linux/PPC machines… . 2005-06-23 3:53 pm Anonymous “How does OSX boot? Any possibility of using one boot manager that can play nice with both OSX and XP? I ask as dual-booting linux with XP is not easy even now, and OSX is unlikely to use GRUB or LILO ” GRUB – boot anything and just about everything…. dual booting isnt easy even now? uh, why not? 2005-06-23 4:20 pm Anonymous Maybe that’s because “your average PC user” knows fcuk all about computer internals? The average person griping about PPC vs x86 seems to know little about computer internals too. The ISA argument is only skin-deep — none of the processors look like that internally. Yonah and the K8 are internally more elegant architectures than the PPC970. They PPC970 has a fairly long pipeline, a relatively small L2 cache, a relatively high-latency L2 cache compared to Yonah, no integrated memory controller, a high-latency memory subsystem, a vector unit that’s kind of bolted-on to the side of the POWER core, and lacks fine-grained power management. It also doesn’t have enough integer units and has complex group-formation rules during dispatch that hurt performance. But the Mac fans never take all of this into account, which is silly, because this is what the processor really is — not some instruction set that doesn’t even exist after the first few stages (yes, even the G5 converts code to an internal ISA). The G5 is a good design no doubt, but from a technical point of view, it’s really not unarguably better than the K8 or Yonah architectures. Moreover, modern x86 systems have a more elegant architecture than the G5 machines. Yeah, the BIOS is ugly, but the BIOS isn’t used after the OS is loaded. In comparison, the PC has cool technologies like Hypertransport, PCI Express, and unified northbridge/southbridge chips. But nobody takes that into consideration either… 2005-06-23 4:44 pm Anonymous What will crossover office do to OS X development? I use Xandros with crossover, installing MS programs is as easy as installing into Windows. The performance hit (after loading the program) is negligable. With that said, I would love to be able to boot into XP for gaming, then reboot into OS X for secure internet surfing, and then–just for fun–boot into Linux to run my favorite OSS. Here’s hoping that Steve Jobs bucks the odds and pulls this off. 2005-06-23 5:06 pm Anonymous Is someone feeling a little sensisitve today? I know there are a couple of trolls out there, but there seem to be A LOT of posts reported for abuse. Anyway, after giving the whole Mac/Intel thing some thought, I must say that I don’t think the switch to Intel will be such a bad thing. It’s really the operating system that I like so much about Macs. 2005-06-23 5:14 pm Anonymous A chip is also more than how big its L2 cache is. As for complaining how Altivec is bolted on, I’d rather have 1 well-made but bolted-on SIMD than 3+ half-finished kludges at emulating it. I’m a long-time fan of PPC over x86 regardless of how the chip is made because I’ve spent copious time with both specs, and its always been magnitudes easier for me to work with the PPC spec over x86. Also, theres no reason a PPC computer can’t have all the peripheral busses and technology that gets sold with x86 computers. 2005-06-23 5:30 pm Anonymous But it’s not just the L2 cache, but a host of other items. The actual PPC970 processor just isn’t an elegant as design as Yonah or K8. And SSE3 isn’t a “half-finished kludge”. It’s not as good as AltiVec, but its implementation in AMD64 (where it has 16 registers) really isn’t that bad. As for the PPC spec, who cares? The ISA is something that doesn’t have any impact on the user, and rather little impact on the core of the processor. It’s just a convenient “common language” for the compiler to talk to the execution core. For a compiler writer (or assembly programmer), it’s easy to think “the ISA is the processor”, but that’s just not true. That hasn’t been true since processors became out-of-order superscaler designs. The only people who really care about the ISA are the designers of the CPU’s front-end and the compiler’s back-end. It’s not really relavent to anyone else. 2005-06-23 5:36 pm Anonymous Uhm, all fine, but Yonah is expected to ship early 2006, so it’s unfair to compare the G5 to that system. Useless comparison. The K8 is a more intertesting story. The K8 wasn’t available to normal people untill the end of 2003. You are comparing *newer* processors to the much older G5 (first introduced in 2002). Also, you could argue that the G5 is even older, seeing it’s basically a modified POWER4 core, which was first introduced in 2001 (however, saqme goes for K8, Opteron is from early 2003). It’s like saying: “Yeah, the latest Toyota Prius is much better for the environment than that Toyota Corolla from 1988.” Duh. 2005-06-23 6:06 pm Anonymous Once upon a midnight dreary, this poor soul was paid by Dell for service rendered, 8 to 5, every day. (PM to AM) During that time, not so long ago, quiet rumor drifted upon the midnight fog. Gently spoken, amongst masters and servants, was talk of dramatic shifts of current, from two old beasts to creating two others. The universe would evolve, in a revolving kind of way, from the D.I.M., to the D.A.A.. The feeble shall note, that old games don’t play, old bikes won’t run. The D.I.M. would slowly give way to D.A.A., crushing two giants, creating two more. If that doesn’t make sense: Unofficial plans / outlooks in market forecast and planning were that the bullying Microsoft may be able to be put in check by Apple’s OS X on Intel hardware. A Dell-Apple deal would allow Dell to use AMD CPUs, thereby putting pressure on the two big thorns in our side: Intel and Microsoft. Intel failed to deliver powerful enough CPUs per agreement with Dell, and Microsoft’s unwillingness to clean up their software to lower our (and our competition’s) support overhead made both unpleasant partners. Having Apple moving to x86 (known for a very long time, BTW), could provide a means to provide new software to compete with Microsoft on Dell machines. Dell has enough control over the market to foster such a ‘rebellious’ move. Though there is no rebellion, only business sense in the moods. Then, utilizing AMD CPUs (with Apple OS X or Windows, no matter), would force Intel to either give more price breaks, or design better hardware for Dell’s uses. Each can work individually, both can be shut off at any given point with easily forgettable costs. Now, AMD has a problem that they must repair: supply. AMD’s quality, performance, stability, innovativeness, and value are all excellent, and excel Intel, in some cases by 200 + percent by cost comparison. Some of you may know that AMD is working on their little problem by outsourcing manufactoring of their CPUs, a move that will hopefuly work. The problem to the rebellion? Microsoft and Intel can both afford to buy themselves out of the entire mess. HOWEVER, it must be considered by them if they should. Intel will need to consider the affect on overall sells. Dell might be a big player, but to Intel, it is just one of many customers. That mentality could bring upon Intel’s demise. But if Intel realizes that Dell could start a trend with this, then Intel will have to think very carefully, because there is no ideal solution for them. If the market trends away slowly, in favor of more technically superior, and more affordable (the big one) solution, a snow-ball affect would start (albeit very slowly), and AMD could become top-dog, provided they play their cards *JUST* right. Microsoft, has MUCH more to lose than Intel. Microsoft’s business is primarily Windows and software for Windows. If Apple’s OS X starts gaining, Linux will rise more, as will other alternatives, taking more and more bites from Microsoft’s near-trillion dollar empire. Apple, AMD, and consumers benefit most from a Dell-AMD-Apple arrangement than a Dell-Intel-Microsoft arrangment. Let us just hope the revolution occurs, creating a nice bright D.A.A. future instead of the D.I.M. one. –Ex-Dell Dude 2005-06-23 6:10 pm Anonymous Damn I hate misleading headlines. Look folks….this is not a first look at a mactel, this is first look at the SDK. I dont really know why this is news worthy. Hey look its a Powermac (seen it, own it) chassis with a P4 (seen em for years now) inside. yawn SDKs <> production machines. Have you seen the xbox360 SDK….its a powermac. How retarded would it be if we had a headline that said “First look at xbox360” and showed a picture of a powermac. 2005-06-23 6:52 pm Anonymous Also, you could argue that the G5 is even older, seeing it’s basically a modified POWER4 core, which was first introduced in 2001 (however, saqme goes for K8, Opteron is from early 2003). But then all that means is that the G5 is a dead end. Where’s the G6? Where are the qualitative evolutions? That’s why the question whether Apple ‘should or shouldn’t’ have switched or not is pointless. Apple had to get newer processors and IBM hasn’t been developping any for years. So…..??? Where does that leave us? Switch to someone who has, no? 2005-06-23 7:01 pm Anonymous All I care about is: -Not having to worry about viruses -Not having to worry about fighting apps to make them do what I want -Not having to do things like defrag my hard drive because the OS company doesn’t care enough to have the OS/filesystem do this automatically, or better put, not fragment files in the first place. -and most of all … that it “just works” Out of Mac, OS/2, Linux, BeOS (and clones), and Windows. Windows is the only one that fails the above. So it’s the only one I don’t use at home anymore. The fact that they pay me good money to keep a bad OS running on lots of computers…I can’t help it if they can’t pick a good OS. What I don’t care about: -What motherboard/CPU/chipset/etc. is inside the box as long as “it just works” 2005-06-23 7:42 pm Anonymous Yep, that about sums it up for me as well. 2005-06-23 7:45 pm Anonymous “As for installing Mac OS X on non-Apple hardware, attempts to boot from the included Mac OS X for Intel disc resulted in an error message on both a Dell and off-brand PC. The message states that the hardware configuration is not supported by Darwin x86.” As long as I haven´t tried it myself on my P4 with Intel915 chipset, I won´t believe this… 2005-06-23 7:51 pm Anonymous If we allow Power4 to count for the PPC970, we also have to allow the K7 to count for the K8. And of course Yonah is a derivative of the PPro core! But that’s kind of besides the point. People around here are acting as if the G5 is so much better than any x86 core, when it’s just not true. If the G5 was as good as everybody implies it is, the few month delta bewteen the G5 and K8 release dates wouldn’t even matter! 2005-06-23 8:02 pm Anonymous This developer box is for porting only. If you think Apple will release a generic Intel Motherboard or sign a deal with someone like MSI you don’t know much about how tightly coupled the motherboard and OS are with Apple Systems. It has its many obvious advantages as well as being able to clean up the crap on the boards and that butt ugly collection of ports flimsily hanging onto the motherboards. No way in hell does Apple need to redesign their cases. The convective heat transfer design is highly refined. They will adapt their motherboards to their current and future cases. The fewer boards the better both from a manufacturering and cost perspective as well as from a support perspective. 2005-06-23 8:16 pm Anonymous People act as though “Cell” will swamp everything, just as how a few years ago people acted as though Itanium2 would rule the earth. Yes, the G5 has fans, but they’re a vocal minority, just like every other techy group (yours included). The fact is that irrespective of the competition, the G5 is a very powerful chip, especially compared to the G4s it replaced. I’ve never said that x86 cores can’t be elegant as well, but you just can’t blindly ignore the specs. If the spec is inelegant, that intuitively places an upper bound on the elegance of the hardware that implements it. 2005-06-23 8:30 pm Anonymous For XP to install without a hitch? The new Intel Macs MUST be using standard PC hardware. Which of course means that OS/X will, with some small amount of hacking, be up and running on a generic PC platform in no time. 2005-06-23 8:55 pm Anonymous If the spec is inelegant, that intuitively places an upper bound on the elegance of the hardware that implements it. You’ve got to put the importance of the spec into context. For modern x86 chips, the ISA is basically just intermediate code. The chips look nothing like that internally. So yes, in theory the spec places an upper bound on the hardware that implements it. But when you get down to it, that upper bound obviously isn’t low enough to keep x86 chips from being faster and more elegant than PowerPC chips. What matters, at the end of the day, is the actual chip. While the ISA has an effect on the design, the only things that can be directly compared is the designs themselves. 2005-06-24 4:11 am Anonymous …you mean to tell me that’s NOT a warning label?? 2005-06-24 10:43 am Anonymous For XP to install without a hitch? The new Intel Macs MUST be using standard PC hardware. Which of course means that OS/X will, with some small amount of hacking, be up and running on a generic PC platform in no time. Ummmm…for one, this is an SDK. Also, Apple is putting code into OS X specifically to lock OS X off of other manufactures PCs. Microsoft is NOT specifically putting software into Windows to prevent it from running on Mac’s. So what’s your point? 2005-06-24 11:39 am Anonymous – not. 2005-06-24 11:52 am Anonymous “But when you get down to it, that upper bound obviously isn’t low enough to keep x86 chips from being faster and more elegant than PowerPC chips. ” But the elegant x86 cores you’ve mentioned are AMD products, and AMD’s latest clock speeds are very much on par with the latest PPC offerings. Yes, Intel has cranked up their clock speeds, but sacrificed the elegance, AMD’s efforts to mix the two have done very well for them, I just see PPC as a bit further along the scale. Oh, and the latest PPC chips also break down instructions to smaller sub-instructions, but instead of being broken down to a handful, its usually just a few. 2005-06-24 12:54 pm Anonymous 1- Unix is shite, at least as a desktop system. 2- Linux is free shite (although, at least, it’s free!) NOTE: Xfree86, KDE and Gnome are as functional as a wig when you go skydiving! 3- Any text based OS is shite (the Amiga ran natively graphic 20 years ago… has anybody tried to develop that concept in the last 20 years? What’s the point of bitching about Microsoft if you all end up aping them?) 4- I’ve always had AMD processors on desktops and Intel processors on notebooks, often underspecified by comparison. Intel wins hands down on performance, especially if you use FEA or 3D CAD software. AMD’s advantage is that they are cheap, but when there is no longer a price advantage, they are worse. 5- The OSX GUI is still the best, but could use a 2 button mouse, possibly with scroll-wheel 6- You can do everything you want with Windows, not so much so with Mac OS: the day I see Matlab, VisualBasic (or similar) Ansys and Unigraphics running natively on Mac I’ll change my mind. 7- Games are a complete waste of time 8- Java is a complete nuisance: kill it once and for all. 2005-06-24 1:08 pm Anonymous the above post cont’d: 9-I’m a smartass troll 10-Not that anybody cares 2005-06-24 10:55 pm Anonymous You’re confused. Stop thinking P4, go examine the performance characteristics of Banais, Dothan and so on to get a clue about how the performance characteristics are going to be like. Additionally, arm chair EEs like yourself seem to have this silly hang up on IPC, well guess what, it’s the sign of a limited mental tool kit. All that matters is final performance, not how you get there. The watts to performance ratio is worthwhile, not the IPC to clock, since they’re both ways to get performance. Oh yes, an brainiac designs as a general trend have always had issues making their projected performance marks.