Intel powered macs

[pickles]

Apple are about to launch a new generation of laptops and desktops powered by Intel chips. Eventually all macs will be Intel powered and presumably running bloated code and software to go with it

Err hello, I think that's been done already they're called Pc's. Whats the point. The end of the line for Mac as something genuinely different, just another brand name now

ps.............. terrible news if you got a mac for xmas

 

[username#132]

To be honest, I don't think that changing their processor supplier is gonna turn Mac into PCs! The whole point of a mac is that the same company that writes the software knows their hardware inside out. So far as the end user is concerned, it shouldn't matter whether the processors are made by IBM or Intel, so long as the software programmers (and they will) know what they're coding for.

 

[darude]

Intel also make some chips for unix platforms, I think HP and SGI have used intel chips in the past. Are you saying that Apple is going to the X86 platform? If so definatly bad news for MAC users.

 

[pickles]

Are you saying that Apple is going to the X86 platform? If so definatly bad news for MAC users.

I think i am saying that yes. If I understand this right they will have to recode to get mac software to run on the x86 architecture which is fundamentally different from the processors they have always used and this will make them identical to the pc. You might as well run Windows XP on it and probably could

it just turns them into a brand name and a marketing image

 

[2scoops0406]

Hmmm, no, I can't be bothered.

 

[empip]

Intel-based Macs will run Windows Vista !
http://www.windowsitpro.com/Windows/Article/ArticleID/49045/Windows_49045.html

......'We don't mind if people want to install Windows on Macs.' Apple Senior Vice President Phil Schiller said this week. 'If there are people who love our hardware but are forced to put up with a Windows world, then that's OK.' On the flipside, Apple won't allow customers to install Intel-based versions of Mac OS X on standard PCs. Apple will begin selling its first retail version of an Intel-based Mac OS X version, code-named Leopard, in 2007.

One technical problem will require some thinking, at least for Windows XP users. The new Macs use a new type of BIOS named Extensible Firmware Interface (EFI), which Intel developed. This interface is currently incompatible with the 32-bit version of XP. However, it's likely that an enterprising hacker will create an OS boot loader of some kind that lets customers install XP and then dual boot it with Mac OS X.

Unlike XP, Vista, Microsoft's next-generation OS, natively supports EFI, so it should be relatively easy to wipe out Mac OS X and install Vista on the new Macs. And because the Intel-based Macs are based on standard Intel and ATI hardware, Vista will likely prove to be compatible with the system's hardware.....

 

[AdamW]

You might as well run Windows XP on it and probably could

Funny you should mention that! The x86 MacOS developers' kit was cracked to run on any old x86 PC and I believe it can be downloaded with little effort.

I'm just hoping that the Mac Zealots will diminish now they are running on the same hardware architecture as the rest of us Of course, they'll still argue their software is better

Now, even Apple are touting the performance benefits of the intel architecture, except if you look at the Apple website they are very very misleading. They claim the Intel chip is doing "a whole lot more than it's ever done in a PC", and putting claims like "4x faster" up. But if you look, they are comparing that to the old powerpc architecture. I hate Apple so much.

I've just gone to the Apple website and priced up a G5-based computer that could do what my x86 PC does, with similar performance. Costs over £3000. My PC could be built for less than half that. No wonder people don't take them seriously, would you pay £15K for a Ford Focus, or £30K for a car that is no better and can only be driven on certain roads?

The new x86 iMac is slightly better, but I can't specify it with adequate hard-drive space for my needs (they tout it can be used for video editing etc, but with just 500GB on a single drive they have to be kidding!), and it still costs £1700 for the inadequate spec.

Both these costs exclude the warranty cover most mac users will probably buy.

 

[pickles]

Now, even Apple are touting the performance benefits of the intel architecture, except if you look at the Apple website they are very very misleading. They claim the Intel chip is doing "a whole lot more than it's ever done in a PC", and putting claims like "4x faster" up. But if you look, they are comparing that to the old powerpc architecture. I hate Apple so much.

I've never been one for intel either because of the cost. All my machines have been AMD based, they have always been cheaper and nowadays they are faster too

This whole mac thing with intel chips =

Intel- struggling for new markets now AMD are a major player and actually have more of the pc chip market

Mac- At the end of the line with their hardware and without either the money or the knowledge base to develop their own hardware further

I think macs were genuinely better in the early days of win 95 but now the image thing is all they have left. You would have to be a bit dumb to fall for it

 

[2scoops0406]

I wasn't going to, but, it's all very wrapped up on the RISC versus CISC architeture, to put it very basically, Intel CPU's are RISC based internally (post x386) but with a CISC based exterior for backwards compatibilities sake. Comparing RISC / CISC core CPU speeds has always been a waste of time.

 

[Ionkontrol]

Mac OSX is the best operating system for music and design. That is their user base. It wont change, coz the processor is intel or whoever. It is better for internet, (no spyware or viruses that plague Windows). Faster processor, bring it on, when all software is re-written to run natively on Intel chips, the best OS will show its true colours. If XP is the daddy, why are peeps hacking it to run on x86?

 

[darude]

Serious design software is quickly switching from UNIX to Windows platforms, especially since XP_64 is available. Several major companies (AIRBUS, BOEING, Lockheed Martin etc) will soon be using windows for all design work (once the unix machines have all died).

Most Major automotive OEM's are using windows writen software (Catia V5) now for design (although this is available on unix as well, which is the platform of choice for the ford group). The X86 platform is now the fastest available (I know I'll get stick for saying this but It's true). A lot of analysis software is available for X86_64 on Linux, which is nearly always advertiesed as giving the fatest performance above everything else.

 

[AdamW]

Unfortunately I haven't been getting on here much, so apologies for the delay in offering some education for Ionkontrol

Mac OSX is the best operating system for music and design.

Ah, "best". That superlative common in the parlance of those who know nothing of computers when describing THEIR favourite system. What is "best", Nvidia or ATI? WHat is "best", Athlon XP or P4? What is "best", ethernet or 802.11?

True, some industry-standard packages originated on the Mac. I am fond of Adobe's offerings, for instance. It goes both ways though: the few Mac owners I know use MS Office, not ClarisWorks.

It is better for internet, (no spyware or viruses that plague Windows).

One of the most adamant of the Macatisti I know swore by this until I showed him THIS and THIS.

If XP is the daddy, why are peeps hacking it to run on x86?

Errr, Apple wrote it to run on x86. However, people are then hacking it to run on generic x86 pcs because they can. People always rise to a challenge. Especially where computers are concerned!

 

[Big_Spark]

Why do people insist on bloating AMD's share of the market and their abilities?

Intel are still the dominant CPU manufacturer, AMD's claims are bloated by the fact that they make chips which are not CPU's thus increasing their overall market share, this is part of the markey Intel does not operate in so a straight line comparison is unfair and misleading.

Regarding speed..oh give me a break, Yes Bartons where faster than P4's for a time, but Intel have stole the glory back with the HT and true dual core P4's, the extreme editions and the Xeon ranges. AMD CPU's run a lot hotter than Intel units.

Here is a good example..colleague has a brand new AMD Turion based laptop, this machine is a 2.5 years old Centrino 1.7GHz with a measly 1MB Level 2 cache. I have 1024MB DDR, he has 2096 DDR2 and yet this machine is still almost 30% faster as comfirmed by both processing the same SETI work units for a direct comparison on four seperate occasions.

AMD CPU's are crap, unreliable and run too hot, they have lost the race so far, although i do not right them off just yet. I have run both Intel and AMD CPU's simultaneoulsy in more than 50 machines for SETI, I know that Intel are the better CPU. AMD are simply cheap.

 

[2scoops0406]

I am helping run an alternative project, called STI, as they would say in the fast show, the results so far have been disappointing!

 

[pickles]

Why do people insist on bloating AMD's share of the market and their abilities?

Intel are still the dominant CPU manufacturer, AMD's claims are bloated by the fact that they make chips which are not CPU's thus increasing their overall market share, this is part of the markey Intel does not operate in so a straight line comparison is unfair and misleading.

Regarding speed..oh give me a break, Yes Bartons where faster than P4's for a time, but Intel have stole the glory back with the HT and true dual core P4's, the extreme editions and the Xeon ranges. AMD CPU's run a lot hotter than Intel units.

Here is a good example..colleague has a brand new AMD Turion based laptop, this machine is a 2.5 years old Centrino 1.7GHz with a measly 1MB Level 2 cache. I have 1024MB DDR, he has 2096 DDR2 and yet this machine is still almost 30% faster as comfirmed by both processing the same SETI work units for a direct comparison on four seperate occasions.

AMD CPU's are rubbish, unreliable and run too hot, they have lost the race so far, although i do not right them off just yet. I have run both Intel and AMD CPU's simultaneoulsy in more than 50 machines for SETI, I know that Intel are the better CPU. AMD are simply cheap.

Whatever the speed issues they don't run too hot anymore, my AMD 64 3700 ticks along at 34 degrees with the stock cooling fan. It runs up close to 40 playing Doom and Unreal, it's an infinitely faster games chip than any equivalent intel chip and much cheaper. Intel have more manufacturing capacity and make more chips but they have been 2nd in the performance stakes for a long time

Your just a sad intel groupie. Come over from the dark side and join the AMD love thing