Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 27 of 27

Thread: MacOs 10.5 (Leopard) will run on Intels!

  1. #16
    Join Date
    10th February 2005 - 21:49
    Bike
    06 10 WITH ALL THE FANCY BITS
    Location
    ON THE APEX/BETWEEN CARS
    Posts
    1,765
    So by going intel... all the mac's are going to overheat.. just like the p4 preshots? Bet the intel architecture will suck too
    Methinks they should have stayed with IBM and had a nibble on the cell chip franchise, then mabey the 'omfg fastest computer' claims would be true for a change

  2. #17
    Join Date
    9th October 2003 - 11:00
    Bike
    2022 BMW RnineT Pure
    Location
    yes
    Posts
    14,591
    Blog Entries
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by riffer
    phooey. FreeBSD does not Aqua and Darwin make. Anyway the macs run BSD, not Free BSD.

    Try Pear out for size in the meantime if you're feeling particularly geekish
    MayDyaBoit!
    If a man is alone in the woods and there isn't a woke Hollywood around to call him racist, is he still white?



  3. #18
    Join Date
    9th October 2003 - 11:00
    Bike
    2022 BMW RnineT Pure
    Location
    yes
    Posts
    14,591
    Blog Entries
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by Biff
    Seriously? As a primary OS on a desktop and not a server? How are you finding it?
    No, just giving Macboy, err, Riffer a wind up

    I've used FreeBSD for proprietary network management packages from Bay, Dowty, and IBM in the past.
    If a man is alone in the woods and there isn't a woke Hollywood around to call him racist, is he still white?



  4. #19
    Join Date
    20th November 2002 - 11:00
    Bike
    SW-125R(F4-TF125), ZXRD400, RD250LC
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand,
    Posts
    5,963
    Blog Entries
    36

    Feeling geeky?

    Apple to Transition to Intel Processors
    ---------------------------------------
    by TidBITS Staff

    At Apple's Worldwide Developer Conference (WWDC) today, Steve Jobs
    dropped a bombshell on the Mac community by confirming rumors
    that the company will transition its computers from the PowerPC
    architecture to Intel processors by 2007. The news was leaked
    in the Wall Street Journal two weeks ago and confirmed by CNet
    and the Wall Street Journal last week.

    http://developer.apple.com/wwdc/
    http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2005/jun/06intel.html

    The reason? Power. Citing each company's processor roadmaps
    beyond 2006, Jobs said that the PowerPC provides 15 "units of
    performance" per watt, while Intel's processors will be able
    to offer 70 units per watt. Jobs also mentioned that they've
    been unable to get a PowerPC G5 processor that will run cool
    enough to put into a laptop, a long-standing sore point among
    PowerBook aficionados.

    However, you won't be able to run out and buy any
    old Intel box and install Mac OS X, according to comments by
    Apple Senior Vice President Phil Schiller; Apple will restrict
    the operating system to Apple-sold Intel computers. It's likely
    that these future Macs will be able to run Windows applications
    better than with today's emulation software.

    Jobs said that Apple has been co-developing an Intel-based version
    of Mac OS X for the last five years in order to keep its options
    open; every release of Mac OS X has been compiled in-house for
    Intel processors. During the WWDC keynote, Jobs demonstrated
    third-party applications such as Photoshop CS2 running on a
    3.6 GHz Pentium 4 processor-based system under Mac OS X 10.4.1.

    Apple plans to ship low-end Macs using Intel processors by this
    time next year, while higher-end systems for professionals will
    appear in 2007. Jobs specifically apologized to those who surely
    wished they could have a PowerBook G5 by now, so we wouldn't
    be surprised to find a high-end laptop high on the development
    priority list.

    **DRM in the Chip** -- One aspect of this transition that could
    prove interesting, in all positive and negative connotations
    of the word, is the so-called "trusted computing" capabilities
    of Intel's CPUs. Little has been done with them yet, but as we
    understand these capabilities, they're designed to work with
    a Microsoft digital rights management (DRM) system. There's
    no telling if or how they may play into Apple's existing music
    or future video plans.

    **Making the Transition** -- Developers who use Xcode should be
    able to make minor changes for their programs to work with Intel
    processors. Compiled binary applications will be able to contain
    the processor-dependent code for both PowerPC and Intel chips,
    meaning that developers can release a single program for both
    types of Macs. Jobs said that more than half of current Apple
    developers use Xcode and another 20 percent were planning to
    start using it soon. Not surprisingly, he suggested that everyone
    else get on the bandwagon, too.

    http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/xcode/

    Jobs also discussed Rosetta, a binary translator that turns
    PowerPC code into code for Intel chips on the fly. While this
    kind of conversion has been used for some forms of emulation
    by other companies in the past, Jobs indicated that Rosetta is
    optimized enough to avoid comparisons with the often clunky and
    funky operation of Classic within Mac OS X. It should be a more
    seamless experience for Mac users, comparable to the PowerPC
    transition, when the vast majority of older 680x0 applications
    simply ran. Jobs demonstrated Photoshop CS2, Microsoft Office,
    and Quicken running in unmodified PowerPC-binary form using
    Rosetta. Of course, just because they run doesn't guarantee
    that they will run well, especially for something like Photoshop,
    which is commonly used to benchmark processor speeds. However,
    it does signal to users that they don't have pay for upgrades
    to all of their software, as many did with the Mac OS 9 to
    Mac OS X transition simply to run it on a new architecture.

    Apple has a long history of carrying its older users on its back
    as it forges across a river dividing two architectures. The change
    from 680x0 to PowerPC was generally good - with exceptions - and
    Mac OS 9 to Mac OS X was a long, slow, but ultimately successful
    transition as developers produced applications that could run in
    Mac OS 9 and Mac OS X. Even the addition of a 64-bit processor
    in the form of the PowerPC G5 produced relatively few problems.

    **Small Developer Crunch?** The Intel processor transition is
    likely to affect smaller developers much more than larger ones.
    Most large software companies that create products for Mac OS X
    also have Windows versions. The code base can be largely
    identical. Smaller developers typically program for a single
    platform and may not have the financial or staff resources for
    the testing necessary.

    **Too Hot to Handle?** In the past, Intel chips ran hotter and
    required more power than comparable PowerPCs. But the company
    has learned a lot from tuning its Pentium 4M and Pentium M
    for laptops, and its new dual-core architecture that has the
    equivalent of two processors in a single integrated circuit
    package doesn't double heat or power as it doubles computational
    performance. (Multi-core technology is apparently the near-term
    future of most processors, with IBM releasing a nine-core system
    called Cell.)

    Beyond wattage figures, IBM and Intel had closed the gap on true
    computational measures, a previous bone of contention dubbed the
    "megahertz myth" when focusing on cycles per second instead of
    actual tasks completed. Intel has suffered a number of setbacks
    in the last year that have slowed their processor speed targets,
    but is still on track to outpace IBM dramatically in the future.
    IBM has had noticeable stumbles including delayed G5 deliveries
    last summer that pushed G5 iMacs back three months.

    Apple has basically conceded that PowerPC G5 chips cannot be
    made cool enough to be used in laptops, which means that unless
    Freescale Semiconductor (Motorola's spun-off chip division) can
    produce much faster PowerPC G4s, Apple will wind up releasing only
    modestly faster PowerBooks for a full two years, which could cost
    them quite a bit of the pro and speed-demon markets.

    It's likely that Apple's roadmap shift to Intel will cause
    financial analysts and business writers to tell the public and
    institutions that Apple now is on a secure footing, no longer
    tied to a small fraction of a tiny part of IBM's current revenue,
    but is rather tying its hopes on the core business of the world's
    largest chipmaker. On the other hand, the stock market generally
    considers change to be a bad thing, and there's a distinct tinge
    of defeat in switching CPUs (ignoring of course, that what makes
    the Mac different has always been the operating system, not the
    technical details of the hardware underpinnings).

    Even more significant is that Windows XP and Longhorn will
    be facing head to head challenges with Mac OS X on what is
    likely to be highly comparable equipment. Running a native
    Intel Photoshop under Mac OS X versus Windows XP will reveal
    more about the efficiencies of Unix and Apple's implementation
    than any of the apples to oranges (or Apples to Redmonds) tests
    yet performed.

    From http://www.tidbits.com

  5. #20
    Join Date
    12th September 2003 - 12:00
    Bike
    Katana 750, VOR 450 Enduro
    Location
    Wallaceville, Upper Hutt
    Posts
    5,521
    Blog Entries
    26
    Quote Originally Posted by Skunk
    Even more significant is that Windows XP and Longhorn will
    be facing head to head challenges with Mac OS X on what is
    likely to be highly comparable equipment. Running a native
    Intel Photoshop under Mac OS X versus Windows XP will reveal
    more about the efficiencies of Unix and Apple's implementation
    than any of the apples to oranges (or Apples to Redmonds) tests
    yet performed.
    They'll find that it doesn't run any faster using a *nix environment.

    *nices just handle multiple CPU requests more efficiently. You can't use any more than 100% of the CPU.

    You can make a Windows pc run fast. Just turn off most of the services.

    And as for MacBoy, I'll have you know I have at least four different OSes at home... and only one is MacOs.
    And I to my motorcycle parked like the soul of the junkyard. Restored, a bicycle fleshed with power, and tore off. Up Highway 106 continually drunk on the wind in my mouth. Wringing the handlebar for speed, wild to be wreckage forever.

    - James Dickey, Cherrylog Road.

  6. #21
    Join Date
    9th October 2003 - 11:00
    Bike
    2022 BMW RnineT Pure
    Location
    yes
    Posts
    14,591
    Blog Entries
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by riffer
    They'll find that it doesn't run any faster using a *nix environment.

    *nices just handle multiple CPU requests more efficiently. You can't use any more than 100% of the CPU.

    You can make a Windows pc run fast. Just turn off most of the services.

    And as for MacBoy, I'll have you know I have at least four different OSes at home... and only one is MacOs.
    MayDyaBoit! - Again!

    If a man is alone in the woods and there isn't a woke Hollywood around to call him racist, is he still white?



  7. #22
    Join Date
    13th January 2005 - 11:00
    Bike
    fire breathin ginja ninja
    Location
    Taka, Aucka
    Posts
    6,419
    not read all of it yet, but apparently a good read:

    What was not said..

  8. #23
    Join Date
    20th November 2002 - 11:00
    Bike
    SW-125R(F4-TF125), ZXRD400, RD250LC
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand,
    Posts
    5,963
    Blog Entries
    36
    Quote Originally Posted by bugjuice
    not read all of it yet, but apparently a good read:

    What was not said..
    What he misses there is that Apple have said that it will not run on any PC. Only Macs with Intel inside.

    How they will achieve that I don't know.

  9. #24
    Join Date
    20th November 2002 - 11:00
    Bike
    SW-125R(F4-TF125), ZXRD400, RD250LC
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand,
    Posts
    5,963
    Blog Entries
    36
    Quote Originally Posted by riffer
    They'll find that it doesn't run any faster using a *nix environment.

    *nices just handle multiple CPU requests more efficiently. You can't use any more than 100% of the CPU.

    You can make a Windows pc run fast. Just turn off most of the services.

    And as for MacBoy, I'll have you know I have at least four different OSes at home... and only one is MacOs.
    Motherboard design will come into it a bit, as I see it it's only the CPU that is being replaced, not the whole box. Obliviously there is more to it than that but the essential CPU clock speed argument will be settled.

    I had hopes of installing 10.4.1 on my PC but it's not to be...

  10. #25
    Join Date
    17th February 2005 - 11:00
    Bike
    sold it :(
    Location
    Manukau
    Posts
    236
    Quote Originally Posted by tristank
    So by going intel... all the mac's are going to overheat.. just like the p4 preshots? Bet the intel architecture will suck too
    Methinks they should have stayed with IBM and had a nibble on the cell chip franchise, then mabey the 'omfg fastest computer' claims would be true for a change
    You wouldn't want a Cell processor in a computer. They're next to useless for any sort of branching pathway. Sure you can render reflective water really fast but as soon as you get to an if then else statement they become unbelieveably slow.

    Anyway we're stuck with MacOS only running on Mac hardware. Though there are some rather telling things from them picking Intel.

    1: DRM. Even more locked in than PowerPC, no installing anything they don't want you to on this computer.
    2. Are they going to keep using the G5 processors as well? P4 and Xeon chips lose to G5s, if they'd gone for AMD then they could have used Opterons which thrash G5s. Maybe they secretly want the intel chips to be a failure so they can go back to PowerPC claiming that it's a "superior architecture"

    I can see one advatage though, ram is finally going to drop down in price for those running a mac. Though I certainly won't be using a Mac until they sort out the massive problem the OS has with threads, it's simply unacceptable that it takes 10 times the time any other OS does to create new threads.

  11. #26
    Join Date
    20th November 2002 - 11:00
    Bike
    SW-125R(F4-TF125), ZXRD400, RD250LC
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand,
    Posts
    5,963
    Blog Entries
    36
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremy
    You wouldn't want a Cell processor in a computer. They're next to useless for any sort of branching pathway. Sure you can render reflective water really fast but as soon as you get to an if then else statement they become unbelieveably slow.

    Anyway we're stuck with MacOS only running on Mac hardware. Though there are some rather telling things from them picking Intel.

    1: DRM. Even more locked in than PowerPC, no installing anything they don't want you to on this computer.
    2. Are they going to keep using the G5 processors as well? P4 and Xeon chips lose to G5s, if they'd gone for AMD then they could have used Opterons which thrash G5s. Maybe they secretly want the intel chips to be a failure so they can go back to PowerPC claiming that it's a "superior architecture"

    I can see one advatage though, ram is finally going to drop down in price for those running a mac. Though I certainly won't be using a Mac until they sort out the massive problem the OS has with threads, it's simply unacceptable that it takes 10 times the time any other OS does to create new threads.
    I thought they were using the same RAM? I get mine from a PC shop. My G5: DDR SDRAM PC3200U-30330. Isn't this 'standard'?

    Most reports mention the future pathway of the chip design. That's why they're dropping the IBM chip.
    I think they'll be using Intels 64 bit chip (whatever that's called), can't see them going back to a 32 bit.

  12. #27
    Join Date
    13th January 2005 - 11:00
    Bike
    fire breathin ginja ninja
    Location
    Taka, Aucka
    Posts
    6,419
    they're also dropping the IBM chip cos it gets too hot and can't be design, developed and built quickly enough to meet demand. The 2.5GHz chips were the first macs to be water cooled. Now they figured out how to cool them a bit better, they released the 2.7 water cooled. They still can't break the 3GHz mark without a neuclear meltdown, so they need a new angle. The Intel chips can be developed further and quicker, and don't produce as much heat. Can't remember the scale Jobs was using, but per watt, the G5 chips were 15 threads (?) per watt, where as the Intel chips could realistically reach 70 by comparison. It's the power they're after, and Intel will deliver, where as IBM can't.

    What really gets me is that the Xbox has their processors based on the G5 chip. Apple have water-cooled dual 2.7s at the moment. The Xbox has 3 x 3.2GHz in a smaller box, and as of yet, no mention of water-cooling.. go figure..

    Anyway, as bizarre as it seems and as let down as a lot of people seem to feel, this can only be a good thing, and Apple have always seemed to pull things like this off in the past, so what's to stop them doing it again? They did it a few years ago from Motorolla (G3 & G4 chip) to IBM for the G5...

    I have heard a rumor of the new start up chime tho, don't think I like it:
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version. 

Name:	PPC 2 Intel.jpg 
Views:	4 
Size:	85.2 KB 
ID:	11257   Click image for larger version. 

Name:	power.jpg 
Views:	7 
Size:	84.9 KB 
ID:	11258  

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •