MacBook Pro (Apple & Intel)

[Niko_Fx]

http://www.apple.com/macbookpro/


This is the first Mac notebook built upon the revolutionary new Intel Core Duo — which is actually two processors (up to 1.83GHz) engineered onto a single chip. It provides 2MB of Smart Cache, L2 cache that can be shared between both cores as needed. It delivers higher performance in 2D and 3D graphics, video editing, and music encoding. And the new engine is only part of the story. MacBook Pro has a frontside bus and memory that, at 667MHz, runs faster than any previous Mac notebook. It’s the first Mac notebook with PCI Express, a Serial ATA hard drive and the ATI Mobility Radeon X1600 for superfast graphics performance.

[johnnynumfiv]

Hopefully I can get my poewrmac G5 before they are replaced, mmmm ......quad core g5......

[taz_rocks_miami]

I wonder if it'll be compatible with older versions of OS X and software?? :confused:

[johnnynumfiv]

They are making universal software now, it runs on both.

[taz_rocks_miami]

They are making universal software now, it runs on both.

Cool :cool: thanks for the info. :)

[Spastik_Roach]

:O

So how does the price of this compare to the old Powerbook pricing?

I'm not sure wether to get a G5 I-mac or a Intel I-mac when I get one later on in the year. They say intels faster so I guess I'll get Intel...just whatever I can afford.

[Matra et Alpine]

Hopefully I can get my poewrmac G5 before they are replaced, mmmm ......quad core g5......
You want to be sure ...

According to "god" himslef at CES ....


Apple boss Steve Jobs also launched a newly branded laptop called the MacBook Pro which also uses an Intel processor. The new generation of iMac would be two to three times faster than the current iMac G5, he said.

[Lagonda]

I wonder if it'll be compatible with older versions of OS X and software?? :confused:
OS X (as of 10.4.4) is fully native along with all the Apple apps like Safari, iMovie, iTunes, Keynote, Pages etc etc*. Older OS versions (like 10.2 and 10.3) do not run on these new machines. But why would you want to install an older OS ?

Software that is compiled as a Universal Binary will run at full speed on these machines. Older PowerPC only software will be emulated through an emulation layer called Rosetta. Rosetta is fully transparent so you won't even notice that it's running. A bit like the Classic environment in OS X. Steve demoed Office running in Rosetta and it seemed speedy enough for normal use (faster than on my machine!). So untill Intel native versions come out you'll be running a lot of software in emulated mode.

I'm personally holding out for the new Intel PowerMacs to switch (and an Intel version of Adobe Photoshop).

*except for Apple's Pro apps Final Cut, Logic, Shake etc. They will begin shipping as a universal binary in March.

That said the new PowerBook name, MacBook Pro, sounds ridiculous IMHO.

[Lagonda]

According to "god" himslef at CES ....
MacWorld, not CES. Apple wasn't even at CES I think.

Oh and the Quad G5 still destroys the Yonah powered Intel macs ;)

[Matra et Alpine]

MacWorld, not CES. Apple wasn't even at CES I think
Yeah it was from SF MacWorld. Sorry been reading press releases from both events and got them crossed :D
Apple stopped going to CES years and years ago.
A couple of years back demonstrated the best reason after Gates had a disastrous CES presentation with PCs crashing and then Jobs could make fun of it at MacWorld the next week :D Class !!!!!

Oh and the Quad G5 still destroys the Yonah powered Intel macs ;)
Why will a quad processor SLOWER processor technology beat a quad processors twin core FASTER Intel "Duo" ??
Jobs said the COMPLETE APPLE FAMILY will move to the Intel chips in the following year.

[Lagonda]

Yeah it was from SF MacWorld. Sorry been reading press releases from both events and got them crossed :D
Apple stopped going to CES years and years ago.
A couple of years back demonstrated the best reason after Gates had a disastrous CES presentation with PCs crashing and then Jobs could make fun of it at MacWorld the next week :D Class !!!!!
You mean the Win98 demo where it bluescreened ? Yeah, that was funny stuff.


Why will a quad processor SLOWER processor technology beat a quad processors twin core FASTER Intel "Duo" ??
Jobs said the COMPLETE APPLE FAMILY will move to the Intel chips in the following year.
Say what you will but the G5 isn't slow. It has bandwidth far beyond anything Intel offers.

I meant the Quad G5 still destroys the dual core Yonah iMacs. I never said that the Quad G5 would beat a theoretical Quad Yonah Mac. I never said anything about quad yonahs ;)

Either way, the Intel PowerMacs will probably be based on the Intel Conroe chips. The Conroe will be a desktop chip based on the Merom which is the chip that will replace the Yonah that currently sits in the iMac and PowerBook (MacBook Pro, whatever, I hate the name).

[Matra et Alpine]

Say what you will but the G5 isn't slow. It has bandwidth far beyond anything Intel offers.
NO. It had more b/w in consumer machines USED to offer.
It didn't match Intel server bandwidths OR latest gen.

I meant the Quad G5 still destroys the dual core Yonah iMacs. I never said that the Quad G5 would beat a theoretical Quad Yonah Mac. I never said anything about quad yonahs ;)
Yeah, but then you're being far too seletive.
Once the DUO intels are in the Apple G5 architecture then you ahve a faster machine.
Steve Jobs words and actions :D

Either way, the Intel PowerMacs will probably be based on the Intel Conroe chips. The Conroe will be a desktop chip based on the Merom which is the chip that will replace the Yonah that currently sits in the iMac and PowerBook (MacBook Pro, whatever, I hate the name).
So you DO realise that the Yonah is "old" already :D
Jsut as it's wrong to take a 2 year old P4 and imagine that is the "power" of a Intel chip, it's invaliud to compare the first Intel in Mac as inidicativbe of wht ate family will use during the coming year.

The facts however are now VERY simple, Apple have dropped their "architecture" because they couldnt' afford to develop it to compete with the Intel/AMD developments. Just as 10 years ago they stopped developing their own video cards. A good business move. What is ALREADY being discused and mooted is will their be a version of Windows made available to run on the Mac boxes as then all the apps would be available along with the good looks of Apples :D

[Lagonda]

Sigh.


NO. It had more b/w in consumer machines USED to offer.
It didn't match Intel server bandwidths OR latest gen.
Seriously. You know we are talking about consumer machines and you start about server chips. Whatever.

And I seriously doubt that the Pentium Extreme 955's 1066mhz bus beats the Quad's 1250mhz bus in terms of bandwidth. And please don't start comparing the Pentium EE with the iMac because the Pentium EE is a $1000 chip.

Don't take this personally but: "It had more b/w in consumer machines USED to offer." That's no English and it makes it annoying to debate.



Yeah, but then you're being far too seletive.
Once the DUO intels are in the Apple G5 architecture then you ahve a faster machine.
Steve Jobs words and actions :D
I have no idea what your point is and how I'm being "selective". The intels are not dropped into the "G5 architecture". The Intel macs have nothing Apple specific in their architecture. Anything "G5" is gone. They are generic intel boards with EFI. Thanks to Intel we lost FW800. I hope that's only temporary.

And, I am not claiming that the G5s are faster than the dual core Yonahs. I never said that. I do claim that the QUAD G5 is faster than the DUAL Yonah. okay ?


So you DO realise that the Yonah is "old" already :D
Get real. It's not old already. It'll be old when Intel SHIPS it's next gen chips. Which is, what, 6 months from now ?


Jsut as it's wrong to take a 2 year old P4 and imagine that is the "power" of a Intel chip, it's invaliud to compare the first Intel in Mac as inidicativbe of wht ate family will use during the coming year.
I never used them as an indication of what's to come. Don't put words in my mouth.


The facts however are now VERY simple, Apple have dropped their "architecture" because they couldnt' afford to develop it to compete with the Intel/AMD developments. Just as 10 years ago they stopped developing their own video cards. A good business move. What is ALREADY being discused and mooted is will their be a version of Windows made available to run on the Mac boxes as then all the apps would be available along with the good looks of Apples :D
Apple dropped the PowerPC because IBM and Motorola couldn't deliver. End of story. Apple had nothing to do with the development and design of the G5. It's all IBM. So, Apple had no power over the development and advancement of the G5, they were at the mercy of IBM. And IBM screwed them just like Motorola did a few years ago with the 500mhz G4 debacle.

Mark my words. Someone will hack windows within a month after the first Intel Macs ship. The only need a specific bootloader (or CSM) for EFI and maybe a driver for the iSight. The Intel Macs use generic intel boards so nothing special there. And I honestly hope that you don't believe that Microsoft will develop a special windows version for Macs.

[Matra et Alpine]

Seriously. You know we are talking about consumer machines and you start about server chips. Whatever.
LETS get "serious" then :D
The quad G5 is NOT a "consumer machine". IT is targeted by Apple at server and number-crunching type activities.
You can equally take a "server oriented" machine and use it on the home desktop if you want.
Mind you finding a desktop large enough tot take an HP Superdome would be a challenge :D
THAT was the point you are avoiding by being far too selective in your comparisons. "Server" and "desktop" are just price and marketing segmentation !!

And I seriously doubt that the Pentium Extreme 955's 1066mhz bus beats the Quad's 1250mhz bus in terms of bandwidth. And please don't start comparing the Pentium EE with the iMac because the Pentium EE is a $1000 chip.
You are using RAW bus clock and not real bandwidth. The memory architecture and smart cache come to play too and the ability of the chipset and processor cache and chip to USE the bandwidth.
Especially when MULTIPLE processors are sharing that FSB. THEN latency has much more impact than bandwidth.
It's being able to USE that that can make the difference in the real world and traditionally where Apple made "better" (ie different) choices than mainstream Intel developers ( I was a lover of the Velocity internals on the G5 architecture :) but that was because our apps were power hungry ) Also their early adoption of dula FSBs to match processors ! Shame they didnt' go quad FSB with the Quad G5 :(

Don't take this personally but: "It had more b/w in consumer machines USED to offer." That's no English and it makes it annoying to debate.
I wont as long as you "debate" and don't get all anal and picky. EVERYONE is entitled to grammatical errors in written English :D
In context with the comment it was in response to I had thought the "in" instead of "than" was obvious and the meaning clear.


I have no idea what your point is and how I'm being "selective". The intels are not dropped into the "G5 architecture". The Intel macs have nothing Apple specific in their architecture. Anything "G5" is gone. They are generic intel boards with EFI. Thanks to Intel we lost FW800. I hope that's only temporary.

[quote]And, I am not claiming that the G5s are faster than the dual core Yonahs. I never said that. I do claim that the QUAD G5 is faster than the DUAL Yonah. okay ?
Yeah BUT that's like saying a car is fast because a Ferrari is faster than a Fiat Panda ?
Of course you can make up comparisons to "prove a point", but so what ??
You "claimed" G5 faster then started picking machines to somehow prove it.
The HP Superdomes piss all over all of them. SO WHAT !!!
G5 are going Intel and STEVE JOBS says they will be faster. I go with the man :D

Get real. It's not old already. It'll be old when Intel SHIPS it's next gen chips. Which is, what, 6 months from now ?
THAT is old.
AMD and Intel have been popping out new chips every 4-6 months for the last 2 years as the competition hotted up. IBM couldn't' develop at that rate to retain Apple's business. Smell the coffee on that pulaease :(
You are again I think being too selective and wanting new ARCHITECTURE ? Intel don't do that, they evolve, even when the HP/Intel tried to develop a completely new architecture it got lost in the business sense of what can be achieved incrementally ( sadly so )

I never used them as an indication of what's to come. Don't put words in my mouth.
Sorry I saw no recognition of the path that Jobs is taking Apple along and the performance curve it will follow once he is mainstream on Intel and has his design teams as knowledgeable on squeezing power from it that he has achieved on the PowerPC architecture. As said before Apple are smart at making use of what is available and I expect to see them produce faster Intel-based architectures than the mainstream competition thus retaining their niche market shares. It's companies like SGI who will worry most as that is their market :D

Apple dropped the PowerPC because IBM and Motorola couldn't deliver. End of story. Apple had nothing to do with the development and design of the G5.
Not entirely true. Apple were HEAVY influencers in bus architectures and especially had a recognised lead in multiprocessor comms and usign it in an OS application space. IBM listened to what they wanted.

It's all IBM. So, Apple had no power over the development and advancement of the G5, they were at the mercy of IBM. And IBM screwed them just like Motorola did a few years ago with the 500mhz G4 debacle.
IBM was the mass-market user and the foundry. They wanted things IBM didnt' need for their mainstream use of PowerPC and couldn't' fund it themselves so were at their mercy. That's business :(

Mark my words. Someone will hack windows within a month after the first Intel Macs ship. The only need a specific bootloader (or CSM) for EFI and maybe a driver for the iSight. The Intel Macs use generic intel boards so nothing special there. And I honestly hope that you don't believe that Microsoft will develop a special windows version for Macs.
It was an unofficial "hack" I perceived also. BUT I've not seen what Mac have committed on core components as MS requires a very specific set of low level capabilities in the surrounding chipset which Apple COULD block and prevent Windows from being supported without a LOT of effort.
I also wouldn't put it past Gates to fund the Windows on Apple hardware himself just to piss Jobs off :D
I never see an official Windows from Apple as Jobs will never pay Apple the $ for the license for each ( unless he's already being forced that route )

[Lagonda]

LETS get "serious" then :D
The quad G5 is NOT a "consumer machine". IT is targeted by Apple at server and number-crunching type activities. You can equally take a "server oriented" machine and use it on the home desktop if you want.
Mind you finding a desktop large enough tot take an HP Superdome would be a challenge :D
THAT was the point you are avoiding by being far too selective in your comparisons. "Server" and "desktop" are just price and marketing segmentation !!
The Quad G5 is not a server machine. The XServe is.

The G5 is oriented at people who design and are into music and movies etc. Creative pros. People who do this kind of stuff on wintels don't use Xeons (maybe a select few) or Itaniums either. It's not aimed at number crunchers.

I'm not "avoiding" anything.

And server and desktop is not all marketing and price segmentation. It comes down to features as well. Like hot swappable hard drives and power supplies amongst other things.

You are using RAW bus clock and not real bandwidth. The memory architecture and smart cache come to play too and the ability of the chipset and processor cache and chip to USE the bandwidth.
Especially when MULTIPLE processors are sharing that FSB. THEN latency has much more impact than bandwidth.
It's being able to USE that that can make the difference in the real world and traditionally where Apple made "better" (ie different) choices than mainstream Intel developers ( I was a lover of the Velocity internals on the G5 architecture :) but that was because our apps were power hungry ) Also their early adoption of dula FSBs to match processors ! Shame they didnt' go quad FSB with the Quad G5 :(
You really think that the G5 chipset and memory architecture is inferior and much slower? I would SERIOUSLY doubt that. It's not that the PowerPC 970 is stoneage technology, now is it ?
But again, you're compairing a $1000 chip here with the G5 (no idea what it costs per 1000 units tho' but it sure isn't $1000).
But we can't really debate this as we do not know the correct numbers here. And it's a bit beside the point of the original comments.


I wont as long as you "debate" and don't get all anal and picky. EVERYONE is entitled to grammatical errors in written English :D
In context with the comment it was in response to I had thought the "in" instead of "than" was obvious and the meaning clear.
I'm not anal and picky. It seems, to me, a very weird mistake to make (or was it intentional, since your saw it ?). Especially for someone who's mother tongue is English.

Weird mistakes like these can make someone interpret a sentance in a whole different way. And it's not the only sentence with a, let's say, awkward construction that you have made. You type a lot of these weird sentences. (probably becuase you think fast and type slow). That's why I made that comment. It was not my intention to insult you or anything.

Written language is very different from spoken language.


Yeah BUT that's like saying a car is fast because a Ferrari is faster than a Fiat Panda ?
Of course you can make up comparisons to "prove a point", but so what ??
You "claimed" G5 faster then started picking machines to somehow prove it.
The HP Superdomes piss all over all of them. SO WHAT !!!
G5 are going Intel and STEVE JOBS says they will be faster. I go with the man :D
I still don't get your point. The only thing I said was that the CURRENT Quad G5 is still faster than Apple's Intel offerings. THAT IS ALL. I never claimed that the future Intels will be slower, nor will I ever claim that because the Intels ARE indeed faster.


THAT is old.
AMD and Intel have been popping out new chips every 4-6 months for the last 2 years as the competition hotted up. IBM couldn't' develop at that rate to retain Apple's business. Smell the coffee on that pulaease :(
Great. But, I still can't see how you can possibly claim that the Yonahs are already "old" when the replacement doesn't even exist yet and when Yonah notebooks have just been introduced in PC laptops at CES and in Macs at MacWorld. Saying that they are old is just bull.


You are again I think being too selective and wanting new ARCHITECTURE ? Intel don't do that, they evolve, even when the HP/Intel tried to develop a completely new architecture it got lost in the business sense of what can be achieved incrementally ( sadly so )
No idea what you mean here. Me wanting a new architecture ?. Please don't assume things that I don't mention. It's called straw man and it's not done in debates.



Not entirely true. Apple were HEAVY influencers in bus architectures and especially had a recognised lead in multiprocessor comms and usign it in an OS application space. IBM listened to what they wanted.
Right, I may not have been so clear with what I meant here. What I meant was that Apple had nothing to do with the design of the chips themselves so they could not help IBM out with designing a lower power version of the chip. If Apple was able/allowed to help them then the switch probably wouldn't have occured and we'd have 3Ghz G5s and G5 PowerBooks by now.

IBM listened and delivered what Apple wanted in the beginning because IBM used the PowerPC 970 in some of their own blade applications. Now that IBM is moving away from the POWER4 to a newer generation they lost interest in the POWER4 and it's derivatives (like the PPC 970). So they slow down development to such a slow pace that the G5 becomes virtually useless for Apple. Add to that that IBM is shifting a lot of it's capacity over to the fabrication of the chips used in the next gen game consoles.


It was an unofficial "hack" I perceived also. BUT I've not seen what Mac have committed on core components as MS requires a very specific set of low level capabilities in the surrounding chipset which Apple COULD block and prevent Windows from being supported without a LOT of effort.
I never see an official Windows from Apple as Jobs will never pay Apple the $ for the license for each ( unless he's already being forced that route )
Err what do you mean by unofficial hack ?

What do you mean exactly by "core components" ? All I know is that apple uses generic intel boards with EFI instead of BIOS. From what I've read is that the only thing WinXP needs is the BIOS and that the EFI can be adapted to emulate the BIOS using some sort of plugin. Win2003 and WinXP64 and Vista boot natively on EFI boards.

Apple's Phil Shiller has stated multiple times that Apple will not do anything to prevent you from installing Windows but nor will they support it. So they could care less if you installed windoze on it.


I also wouldn't put it past Gates to fund the Windows on Apple hardware himself just to piss Jobs off :D

I don't see why this would matter. Steve could care less. Apple's still a hardware company. If people want to buy a Mac and run that abomination of a Microsoft OS on it than all the power to them.

[Matra et Alpine]

The Quad G5 is not a server machine. The XServe is.['/quote]
The perfect PR being swallowed.
G5s are used as servers.
one of the largest server farms built for co-operative computation was a G5 farm !!
[quote]The G5 is oriented at people who design and are into music and movies etc. Creative pros. People who do this kind of stuff on wintels don't use Xeons (maybe a select few) or Itaniums either. It's not aimed at number crunchers.
You're missing a WHOLE LOT OF THE MARKETING on the G5 if you think it's not aimed at number crunchers AND a lot of it's deployed usage. ( We were asked to evaluate our application for a possible port to Apple for a major account. We didnt'. We showed they could get more performance from the HP Superdome for less cost even taking into account their installed base ( and IT preference ) of Apples.

And server and desktop is not all marketing and price segmentation. It comes down to features as well. Like hot swappable hard drives and power supplies amongst other things.
Many desktops offer that and many servers get used on the desktop where the user has a requirement best met by the implementation. So for hardware it IS about segmentation. The OS is different though requiring different tweaks to maximise performance for most server-like applications.
The BIG differentiator is that companies can charge more for the same features in a "server" configuration :D

You really think that the G5 chipset and memory architecture is inferior and much slower? I would SERIOUSLY doubt that. It's not that the PowerPC 970 is stoneage technology, now is it ?
It's at the end of it's life and development possibilities.
Getting faster now is taking different architectural paths as they can't just use a new foundry method to make things faster.
So in that respect the PowerPC is the McLaren F1 of the day.
Still very fast fantastic technology but no longer the best - Veyron AWD an example of better "architecture" ??

But again, you're compairing a $1000 chip here with the G5 (no idea what it costs per 1000 units tho' but it sure isn't $1000).
Of course it won't as it's not a leading edge design of new features and uncertain yields.
Also it's a common danger to see sales price of a chip as it's "cost".
They are launched at a "market price" which has less and less to do with initial costs. So some could be sold a LOT LESS than launch price and some dont.
When comparing prices you have to find a comparable cost point in their lifecycle. Different companies operate different comparisons based on their business cycles. So not 'fair' compare a new launch with an old processor

I'm not anal and picky. It seems, to me, a very weird mistake to make (or was it intentional, since your saw it ?). Especially for someone who's mother tongue is English.
Well you WERE anal and picky. Let's be honest about that at least.
As you continue to be thinking it was "intentional" when all I pointed out was that in reading it I can see where I mis-typed the sentence construction. ( Take grammar comments to another thread -- preferably /dev/null !! )
What "tongue" it is isn't that relevant as this is a forum where "speech" is often what's typed and not structured reports. I type stream of conscious, so folks see my views as I think them. I leave it to readers to decide whether the effort to read it is worth it or to pass by

Weird mistakes like these can make someone interpret a sentance in a whole different way. And it's not the only sentence with a, let's say, awkward construction that you have made. You type a lot of these weird sentences. (probably because you think fast and type slow). That's why I made that comment. It was not my intention to insult you or anything.
Well you did and if I follow your approach I could be claiming you intended it to.
But I'm not like that :p :D

Written language is very different from spoken language.
only to the reader :D
"most" online folks accept that written in forums and blogs and messengers is more akin to conversation that everyone producing written reports.
If you're wanting perfect English then you need to avoid forums :D

I still don't get your point. The only thing I said was that the CURRENT Quad G5 is still faster than Apple's Intel offerings. THAT IS ALL. I never claimed that the future Intels will be slower, nor will I ever claim that because the Intels ARE indeed faster.
Real simple, the G5 is fast. BUT that APPLE have decided that all of them will be replaced with Intel replacements. So the experts decided that to maintain performance against the competition they had to switch chip vendor. Thats all that was said :) If the G5 was going to be fast enough to compete then they wouldn't'; need to switch. Fine it's fast today, but tomorrow, next week, next month ?? Apple have said ALL the family will be intel by year end so THEY clearly think the G5 price/performance will be ousted by the competition within that timescale. THEY are making the business choice for reasons :D
PS: There are already complaints from new G5 customers who have just bought into the platform complaining, clearly not everyone expected Apple to announce such a swift uptake on Intel !!!

Great. But, I still can't see how you can possibly claim that the Yonahs are already "old" when the replacement doesn't even exist yet and when Yonah notebooks have just been introduced in PC laptops at CES and in Macs at MacWorld. Saying that they are old is just bull.
As soon as a chip is in sufficient yield and quantity for mass manufacturing then it is "old" as these never reflect the early price point of a chip foundry.
That's the reality of designing computers and whilst consumers get annoyed I can assure you it costs a developer MUCH more hassle trying to make sure at launch there is a viable product.
The "replacement" does exist, just not in yield and meeting all the goals of the design - heat dissipation is like aero in F1, you can't be sure till you build one and test it :D

No idea what you mean here. Me wanting a new architecture ?. Please don't assume things that I don't mention. It's called straw man and it's not done in debates.
Strawman NOT done in debates ? of course it is !!!
My comment on "architecture" was that you seemed to only want to count processors where a new architecture was announced. Many tweaks to chips occur over their design lifetime to increase throughput, performance and capability. It seemed that you were only wanting to count the BIG changes. If I picked that up wrong, then I stand corrected.

If Apple was able/allowed to help them then the switch probably wouldn't have occured and we'd have 3Ghz G5s and G5 PowerBooks by now.
If they had funded it then it might have been possible.

Err what do you mean by unofficial hack ?
The term "hack" can be used many times meaning different things. Some "hacks" come from the supplier with no warranty etc etc. so 'official hack'
Unofficial was used to clarify we both meant a third party bodging it.

What do you mean exactly by "core components" ? All I know is that apple uses generic intel boards with EFI instead of BIOS. From what I've read is that the only thing WinXP needs is the BIOS and that the EFI can be adapted to emulate the BIOS using some sort of plugin. Win2003 and WinXP64 and Vista boot natively on EFI boards.
IRQ memory locations. Register mappings. Base 640K memory. I dont' know if Apple mapped WIntel on the PCI-X and Express or whether they disallowed it.
But yeah, thinking 64 bit , OSes dont' get hit at all.

Apple's Phil Shiller has stated multiple times that Apple will not do anything to prevent you from installing Windows but nor will they support it. So they could care less if you installed windoze on it.
The perfect marketing-speak :D
"not do anything to prevent" doesn't mean not make an engineering choice to use a memory location for IRQ for Mac OS/X beneficial operation or some other thing which brain-damamges a Windows port unless the implementor had internal Apple knowledge.

I don't see why this would matter. Steve could care less. Apple's still a hardware company. If people want to buy a Mac and run that abomination of a Microsoft OS on it than all the power to them.
Apple is an iPod company now :D
The comical suggestion was put forward as it would once and for all remove the Apple v Mac debate AWAY from the neat look and ergonomics of Apple products. Something which Apple trades strongly on. So you could have a neat looking computer AND Windows Media Centre or Vista.

[taz_rocks_miami]

OS X (as of 10.4.4) is fully native along with all the Apple apps like Safari, iMovie, iTunes, Keynote, Pages etc etc*. Older OS versions (like 10.2 and 10.3) do not run on these new machines. But why would you want to install an older OS ?

You're right, I don't know what I was thinking.


Software that is compiled as a Universal Binary will run at full speed on these machines. Older PowerPC only software will be emulated through an emulation layer called Rosetta. Rosetta is fully transparent so you won't even notice that it's running. A bit like the Classic environment in OS X. Steve demoed Office running in Rosetta and it seemed speedy enough for normal use (faster than on my machine!). So untill Intel native versions come out you'll be running a lot of software in emulated mode.

That's very informative, thanks. :)

[Lagonda]

You're right, I don't know what I was thinking.

That's very informative, thanks. :)
You're welcome. Feel free to ask if you have any questions.

[Lagonda]

The perfect PR being swallowed.
G5s are used as servers.
one of the largest server farms built for co-operative computation was a G5 farm !!
Yep, before the Xserver was available. After that they dumped all the powermacs and changed the Virginia Tech Cluster to XServes....


Well you WERE anal and picky. Let's be honest about that at least.
No.


As you continue to be thinking it was "intentional" when all I pointed out was that in reading it I can see where I mis-typed the sentence construction. ( Take grammar comments to another thread -- preferably /dev/null !! )
Well I'm not easily offended. But now I am.

I CONTINUE TO THINK THAT IT WAS INTENTIONAL ??? CONTINUE ? WTF.
I asked the question if it was intentional. I NEVER claimed that it was indeed intentional. And now you accuse me of continuing to think that it was intentional.. You seriously disappoint me here Matra.

Read again what I said, where did I claim that it was intentional ? That's right. Nowhere.


What "tongue" it is isn't that relevant as this is a forum where "speech" is often what's typed and not structured reports. I type stream of conscious, so folks see my views as I think them. I leave it to readers to decide whether the effort to read it is worth it or to pass by
Coherent structures and readable sentences are quite important IMO. Your train of thought is worthless if you can't convey it.


Well you did and if I follow your approach I could be claiming you intended it to.
But I'm not like that :p :D
What approach ?


only to the reader :D
Isn't that the one that needs to understand what you are saying? Or do you say to yourself: "well if he doesn't understand what I'm saying than that's his problem" ? That's not the best attitude to get your point across.


"most" online folks accept that written in forums and blogs and messengers is more akin to conversation that everyone producing written reports.
I absolutely accept the fact that forums and blogs and so on are no great works of literature but, I do expect that you try to convey the message in an understandable way.


If you're wanting perfect English then you need to avoid forums :D
I never said that I require perfect English. I couldn't ask you to write down perfect English since my English isn't perfect either. I don't even care about small grammatical errors and small typos.


Real simple, the G5 is fast. BUT that APPLE have decided that all of them will be replaced with Intel replacements. So the experts decided that to maintain performance against the competition they had to switch chip vendor. Thats all that was said :)
And I never ever claimed otherwise. That's cleared up.


If the G5 was going to be fast enough to compete then they wouldn't'; need to switch. Fine it's fast today, but tomorrow, next week, next month ?? Apple have said ALL the family will be intel by year end so THEY clearly think the G5 price/performance will be ousted by the competition within that timescale. THEY are making the business choice for reasons :D
Right. That's exactly what I said. So why the big fuss ?


PS: There are already complaints from new G5 customers who have just bought into the platform complaining, clearly not everyone expected Apple to announce such a swift uptake on Intel !!!
Yeah, duh. What do you expect ? Do you really expect Apple to tell everybody: "hey, don't buy our products now because we'll be releasing a new product next month !" ? That's shooting yourself in the foot.

Besides PPC support will continue at least untill 2009 or 2010 as far as Apple is concerned. And it's not like those machines suddenly become useless because there are Intel Macs out now. There's also this thing called Universal Binaries so software won't the be problem either. And G5s ARE fast so the whineing isn't completely justified.


As soon as a chip is in sufficient yield and quantity for mass manufacturing then it is "old" as these never reflect the early price point of a chip foundry.
That's the reality of designing computers and whilst consumers get annoyed I can assure you it costs a developer MUCH more hassle trying to make sure at launch there is a viable product.
The "replacement" does exist, just not in yield and meeting all the goals of the design - heat dissipation is like aero in F1, you can't be sure till you build one and test it :D
Well, it depends on the definition of "obsolete" then. As long as there is no replacement ON THE MARKET the chip isn't old if you ask me. Of course there's always a next version in development somewhere, that's a given. But, as long as it isn't available TO BUY, the current chip remains the "new" or "current" tech but certainly not "old" tech.
No consumer cares about chips under development, it's what they can get their hands on that counts.


Strawman NOT done in debates ? of course it is !!!
No, it's a weak tactic. Foggetaboutit*

*a cookie for the person who can tell me where this comes from


My comment on "architecture" was that you seemed to only want to count processors where a new architecture was announced. Many tweaks to chips occur over their design lifetime to increase throughput, performance and capability. It seemed that you were only wanting to count the BIG changes. If I picked that up wrong, then I stand corrected.
Again, in my original comment I said that the CURRENT (as in: today, aujourd'hui, vandaag, heute) Quad G5 is probably faster than APPLE's current Intel offerings when comparing them doing the same tasks. (NOT the Intel offerings of some other company or Intel's products in general). Nothing more, nothing less. Nothing complicated.


If they had funded it then it might have been possible.
Yeah well apparantly it wasn't or IBM just told apple to **** off.


IRQ memory locations. Register mappings. Base 640K memory. I dont' know if Apple mapped WIntel on the PCI-X and Express or whether they disallowed it.
But yeah, thinking 64 bit , OSes dont' get hit at all.
To be honest I don't really know what IRQ and register mappings etc are. Nor do I really understand why it matters? All I know is that Apple uses generic Intel motherboards with EFI instead of BIOS. You probably know what EFI is. And that it's perfectly possible to install windows on them.

Also base 640K memory ? lol that sounds like some real legacy stuff there. Not claiming it is but it sure sounds like that; Does "Nobody will need more than 640K of memory" ring a bell ? :D . One of the big reasons that Intel is so happy to partner with Apple is that they can finally introduce new tech (like EFI) without having to hold back because of microsoft and their requirement of legacy technology. Apple, as a company that always pioneers new tech, will gladly adopt Intels new tech. You can't say that about MS.


The perfect marketing-speak :D
"not do anything to prevent" doesn't mean not make an engineering choice to use a memory location for IRQ for Mac OS/X beneficial operation or some other thing which brain-damamges a Windows port unless the implementor had internal Apple knowledge.
Look Apple IS a hardware company. The only thing they care about is selling the machine, not the OS. They couldn't care less about you installing windows on it. So why in heavens name would they prevent you from installing windows. It makes no sense. It doesn't benefit them when they prevent you from installing windows.

Apple makes no money on selling it's OS. They never have and never will. They make their money on hardware. They always have and will continue to do so. But, the OS sells the hardware.

Either way, most people who buy a Mac will not install Windows on it. The whole point of buying a Mac is that you don't have to use Windows anymore. People won't buy a Mac just to run windows on it.


Apple is an iPod company now :D
Err, no. Apple's in the business of selling computers and ipods and they will continue selling computers if you like it or not. The iPod is just a good cash cow, that's all.


The comical suggestion was put forward as it would once and for all remove the Apple v Mac debate AWAY from the neat look and ergonomics of Apple products. Something which Apple trades strongly on. So you could have a neat looking computer AND Windows Media Centre or Vista.
I guess you mean PC vs Mac debate ? (instead of Apple vs Mac)

Again the point of buying a Mac is being able to use the great OS. It never was about the hardware. The hardware didn't make the Mac. The OS did.

You could find a case of a powermac somwhere, hack an ATX motherboard in it an install Windows on it. And there you have your good looking Windows media centre thing.

[NuclearCrap]

I find these long posts somewhat funny. :D Although I never bothered to read them.

[Matra et Alpine]

Look Apple IS a hardware company. The only thing they care about is selling the machine, not the OS.
Wrong.
iTunes subscription service makes them lots of money.
You're living olde-worlde Apple. They've moved on.

Err, no. Apple's in the business of selling computers and ipods and they will continue selling computers if you like it or not. The iPod is just a good cash cow, that's all.
It's got NOTHING to do with what "I like".
Please understand that.
I'm not some nerdy fanboy.
I make my money by knowing where businesses are weak and building those parts stronger. I've spent the last 15 years of it in the mobile networks management.

Apple are clearly positioning to come into the mobile network as has been doign the rumour mill for over a year.
in the mobile business NOBODY makes money from the hardware !!!!!!!
It's the business relationship and the services and service support that earn the $$$$

If you've been following MacWorld and it's reports then you'll already have read the reports that they've been tying down every phrase to do with "mobile me" and trademarking it :D The analysts post Macworld said "It could be an interesting move for the company, which has seen its core businesses erode and increasingly relies on the iPod."

So far I've given you substantiated information on the Apple business.
I appreciate your Mac-supporting-comments and they were partly expected. But try to not let personal bias colour analysis of a companies business.

[Lagonda]

Wrong.
iTunes subscription service makes them lots of money.
You're living olde-worlde Apple. They've moved on.
Wrong. First of all, the iTMS isn't subscription based. Secondly. The profit is marginal. They only reached break even a few months ago. Apple makes 0.20$ per song that's is absolutely nothing compared to what iPod and Mac sales bring home.
So, Apple still is the hardware company it was before with a content providing side business.



Mobile rumours have been going one for far more than a year and the only thing that came out of it untill now is iTunes on the motorolas. The so called "iPhone" rumours have been going on for at least 5 years. It's not like Apple's going to start it's own cell phone network.

[quote]If you've been following MacWorld and it's reports then you'll already have read the reports that they've been tying down every phrase to do with "mobile me" and trademarking it :D
Yeah, I know of that mobile me stuff. But what does it mean ? Not all that much. They trademark and patent all through the year.. Some of that stuff comes to market and some (most) of it doesn't. You know as little as me and everyone else when it comes to the subject of future products and strategy. Especially with a company like Apple who are very serious about keeping everything very quiet untill the last moment.


The analysts post Macworld said "It could be an interesting move for the company, which has seen its core businesses erode and increasingly relies on the iPod."
What exactly could be an interesting move for the company ?


So far I've given you substantiated information on the Apple business.
I appreciate your Mac-supporting-comments and they were partly expected. But try to not let personal bias colour analysis of a companies business.
What substantiated information on Apple's business ?
I don't really see where my so called bias coloured my analysis of Apple.

[Matra et Alpine]

Wrong. First of all, the iTMS isn't subscription based. Secondly. The profit is marginal. They only reached break even a few months ago. Apple makes 0.20$ per song that's is absolutely nothing compared to what iPod and Mac sales bring home.
True, because to "break even" you first have to pay your initial equipmetn and setup costs. After tehat it's all clear $$ profit to bottom line except for a small server centre operation :D
ahem, let's do the VERY SIMPLE math.
One owner buys one Ipod capable of storing 1000 songs and downloads those songs. THAT brings them in $200 - which is in excess fo the SALES PRICE of the iPod never mind hte PROFIT.
Sorry, you're forgetting "software" sales and profits ahve ALWAYS been more successful as a business model !!

Mobile rumours have been going one for far more than a year and the only thing that came out of it untill now is iTunes on the motorolas. The so called "iPhone" rumours have been going on for at least 5 years. It's not like Apple's going to start it's own cell phone network.
Neither does Nokia, nor Sony-Ericsson or Motorola !!
I dont' think you get the business model for mobiles very well.
Do you see any push for 3G/EDGE networks locally ? If not then if you look online you'll see the BIG difference it's making for content SUBSCRIPTION. So teh 20c profit per song download pales into insiginifance for a $1 for video of goal download. As stated above once setup and running a delivery business will be VERY profitable , the numbers are in it's favour as long as content is right !!

Yeah, I know of that mobile me stuff. But what does it mean ? Not all that much. They trademark and patent all through the year.. Some of that stuff comes to market and some (most) of it doesn't. You know as little as me and everyone else when it comes to the subject of future products and strategy. Especially with a company like Apple who are very serious about keeping everything very quiet untill the last moment.
You're trying hard not to read what was written.
The INDUSTRY is now saying that those "rumours" are much stronger than ever before. Still rumours mind :D But if it walks and talks liek a duck :D

What exactly could be an interesting move for the company ?What the para was about. Go back and read it in context please :(

What substantiated information on Apple's business ?
erm are you reading different posts from the ones I write ?
I've even highlighted ther important bits of the analyst quotes

I don't really see where my so called bias coloured my analysis of Apple.
See the points already raised herein :(
If you still don't see them then end now please.

[Matra et Alpine]

WOW. An update from MacWorld and Jobs proudly announced that Apple had sold and downloaded 850 MILLION songs !! http://techrepublic.com.com/2300-10878_11-6025148-9.html
Versus 14 million iPods sold in the last quarter.

[Clivey]

So when are we expecing the 12" Powerbook replacement then guys? I'll be interested to see the advantages it has over mine.

I have to ask this question though, Apple are somewhat reliant on the iPod to bring in the cash for them but with many mp3 players being built into phones now as well as other devices being built into phones (can't wait until I can have my computer, camera, phone, mp3 player and games console all in the same package), where does that leave the iPod? We've already seen the Motarola ROKR with iTunes so is it only a matter of time before the iPod becomes a phone or becomes extinct?