OESF Portables Forum
General Forums => Off Topic forum => Topic started by: samxiao on June 06, 2005, 06:43:07 pm
-
http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2005/jun/06intel.html (http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2005/jun/06intel.html)
what do you guys think?
i feel upset and disappointed and unbelievable.
how they keep selling their PowerMac for another year?
-
Why would it? It's not going to run on your pc now. It has to be an "Apple". Just because it's intel inside doesn't make it a "pc". It will still be a Mac. There will still be a boot rom on the board.
-
I guess that Apple is wanting to harness the DRM (http://www.pcworld.com/resource/printable/article/0,aid,121027,00.asp) (Digital rights management) features of the newer Intel processors/chipsets.
-
No they just want to use processors that will go faster than 2.7Ghz. Motorola let us down.
-
Still, they could use the Cell processor, that, at clock speeds of 3.2 GHZ, is 4 times more powerfull than a P4 at 3.2
The Cell has a maximum clock speed of 4.6 GHZ, and of course, it's based on the POWER Architecture.
There's a nice solution for ya.Although the Cell won't come out for another year, they could wait.
-
Still, they could use the Cell processor, that, at clock speeds of 3.2 GHZ, is 4 times more powerfull than a P4 at 3.2
The Cell has a maximum clock speed of 4.6 GHZ, and of course, it's based on the POWER Architecture.
There's a nice solution for ya.Although the Cell won't come out for another year, they could wait.
[div align=\"right\"][a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=83161\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a][/div]
i heard Cell is design for gaming purpose
it has no cache for general-purpose computing
-
They have a hard enough time getting powerpc processors as it is. Now the new xbox and playstation will be eating them up just as fast of maby even faster. What's really getting me is all the other sites saying it will make them just like pc's with all the viruses and junk that goes along with windows. How's that! It's still unix in there, and it still won't be installable on a dell.
-
hmmm. even with the bootrom ( I think) won't this put OSX head to head with x86 linux? interesting.....
-
No, x86 linux is free!
-
Who cares what is inside the box nowadays, as long as it is user-friendly, does not cost me much, expandable and most important is that it is less vulbnerable to vrius or spyware attacks.
The main switch will be the next fight for dominance of media PC in every home.
-
hmmm. even with the bootrom ( I think) won't this put OSX head to head with x86 linux? interesting.....
[div align=\"right\"][a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=83226\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a][/div]
and has more software, I suspect
been fishin yet?
-
What's really getting me is all the other sites saying it will make them just like pc's with all the viruses and junk that goes along with windows. How's that! It's still unix in there, and it still won't be installable on a dell.
[div align=\"right\"][a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=83215\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a][/div]
You are right - all of those people apparently never heard of OpenBSD which is the most secure OS out there - and it runs perfectly on x86 (which of course means that security problems on wintel are really due to horrendous job MS does with their software).
-
Naa, fishing is waay to boring for me, that and I can't stand fish...
-
I was all doom and gloom for abut 24 hours. But, really, this is an architecture switch comparable to the same advances that would have been made on the PowerPC if IBM had been able to deliver. I just got a new iMac over the weekend, and I have neither regret nor apprehension.
The only thing that worries me is the DRM on Intel chips. But there's no guarantee that Apple will incorporate this (it only works with Microsoft's Janus DRM, AFAIK) -- the company has traditionally worked in just enough DRM to appease the music companies and no more.
-
Google'ICringley
He has some interesting thoughts related to intel buying apple and thus apple finally beats microsoft!
-
I was all doom and gloom for abut 24 hours. But, really, this is an architecture switch comparable to the same advances that would have been made on the PowerPC if IBM had been able to deliver. I just got a new iMac over the weekend, and I have neither regret nor apprehension.
The only thing that worries me is the DRM on Intel chips. But there's no guarantee that Apple will incorporate this (it only works with Microsoft's Janus DRM, AFAIK) -- the company has traditionally worked in just enough DRM to appease the music companies and no more.
[div align=\"right\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a][/div] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=83409\")
There is some interesting commentary from a guy[1] who has also just made the switch to Apple. He raises some good points. There's also loads of eye-candy images on his website of the new 30" Apple monitor he bought
[1] [a href=\"http://urbanmainframe.com/folders/blog/20050609/]http://urbanmainframe.com/folders/blog/20050609/[/url]
-
Cringley is a crank.
Apple move to Intel, yeah. I was stunned even a bit disappointed, I guess they had to do it, Cell was never an option, it's not designed for that kind of use. But Intel have problems of their own, they must have shown things to Steve Jobs to convince him this was the right move. I was expecting to replace my Mac mini with a G5 based mini eventually, I expected a 64bit transition. That's not going to happen, infact the Intel 64bit Macs, look like they'll be arriving Q4 2007.
The Rosetta thing is a bit of a fudge though, if you read through the developer docs, you'll see it will translate only G3 apps, no G4 or G5 code and Altivec has no equivalent on Intel, it's a re-write job.
My initial reaction has been one of great vengence and furious anger, but I read Intel as Windows PC for some illogical reason, there is no reason to expect an Apple Intel Mac will be PC by another name, but there are worrying signs. No Openfirmware, maybe a BIOS and the remark that Windows could be installed, that would indicate that future Macs will be PCs unless a VM is present for such use. OSX won't run on other x86 hardware though, probably because of a hardware lockout feature. Someone will create something to run it fast in a VM though for sure, albeit illegally.
Could be the start of a chain of errors, could be the best thing ever for Macs.