New x86-based Macs are out!

[neverwhere2012]

for crying out loud. some people need to do their homework. Intel chips currently contain a technology called EM64T which allows them to emulate 64-bit. no they are not true 64-bit, but will emulate much in the way that AMD 64 chips will emulate 32 to be backwards compatable with Windows XP. Vista is also designed to be backwards compatable for 32-bit so that Microsoft doesn't completely alienate their customer base and force every PC user on the planet to buy a new computer just to run their new OS. Also, OSX Tiger -- 10.4.x is a true 64-bit OS, Panther (10.3.x) was not. Tiger does in fact run well on almost all Macs all the way back to some G3's. it runs far better, in fact, than any previous version of OSX on all Macs -- i.e. it runs in 32-bit quite well in addition to running in native 64-bit. the entire 32/64-bit arguments are stupid anyway, because not all Applications are native 64-bit and probably won't be for quite some time, so it doesn't matter. Bottom line is that the new Macs are going to smoke the old Macs in performance 64-bit or not. blah.

[egbert]

What you say is true, but like you say about Dell, same applies with A¢, they will want to design large portions of the mobo to fit their needs, and that includes the hardware that tells the OS that the mobo is indeed an A¢/Intel designed board. Plus, from what Intel stated publicly, they are working with A¢ on new hyperthreading/SSE/Altivec type ideas in a way that they can't do with M$. That sort of thing implies to me that A¢ will have a larger say in mobo design than the PC hardware manufacturers.

My reading of this is not that Apple would design the mobo - Intel would consult with them on what they needed and supply a design. Same with the builders - Apple or any other 3rd party do not know what the technical problems with board prototypes in the Asus factory are - only the Asus engineers do - they might get support from the chipset supplier if they are having tech problems - but final hardware design and constuction is done by specialists in that area.

Intel consults with all sorts - Steinberg was consulted by Intel about SSE stuff for the P4 - so that the new acceleration units would be useful for audio processing. At the launch of the P4 all the old x87 based plugins did not run any faster than on the fastest existing PIIIs. After a while many developers started to compile their plugins to take advantage of the new SIMD units.

Similarly - Apple consulted extensively with Emagic about Core Audio and the collaboration led directly to the buyout.

As far as Intel and Apple's ideas vector processing I think Apple's role would be explaining what sort of services they would like delivered to their OS/programs by Intel's next generation of vector type units. They would know what their existing code could easily be adapted to and would know where future improvements to vector processing might be found.

Intel would design the silicon - they know their processes and what they can do and what will deliver acceptable yields in Intel plants - Cupertino knows shit about that.

If you go to a bespoke tailor and have yourself measured for a suit you can have plenty of input into the choice of fabric and the style but you don't get to tell the guy how to thread a needle or stitch the parts together and WTF would you want to?

[sxealex]

AUTO-ADMIN: Non-MP3, WAV, OGG, SoundCloud, YouTube, Vimeo, Twitter and Facebook links in this post have been protected automatically. Once the member reaches 5 posts the links will function as normal.

pfff:

http://www.uneasysilence.com/os-x-prove ... dinary-pc/ (http://www.uneasysilence.com/os-x-proven-hacked-and-running-on-an-ordinary-pc/)

[ericj23]

pfff:

http://www.uneasysilence.com/os-x-prove ... dinary-pc/

yep i suspect anyone at apple who thinks osx wont be able to run on dells and other bog standard pc's has rather underesimated how driven the wintel based hacking community is

if someone says the can't it bceomes there mission to make sure they can

[AD80]

pfff:

http://www.uneasysilence.com/os-x-prove ... dinary-pc/

Oh boy.

[machinesworking]

Intel would design the silicon - they know their processes and what they can do and what will deliver acceptable yields in Intel plants - Cupertino knows shit about that.

Never even insinuated that Apple was designing the chips? Apple did indeed design the motherboard for the PPC chips, and though you're probably right in that they will eventually not have to worry as much about it, I would be surprised if they still weren't at least very much a part of that process.

Similarly - Apple consulted extensively with Emagic about Core Audio and the collaboration led directly to the buyout.

Uh, Apple consulted with MOTU, Steinberg, and Emagic about AU design, not just Emagic. In fact once MOTU's Digital Performer was able to use AU, the first problem they had with AU was that third party developers were deviating from AU spec to hack it into Emagic's poor AU implementation. Digital Performer was more to AU spec than Logic. All the insinuations that Emagic got a huge advantage in compatibility from the Apple buyout really looked silly when the first Apple branded version of Logic was one of the largest updates, and ran like crap on certain people's (mine for example) systems. It's stable now, but I think Emagic would have slowly added features instead of just dumping in a ton of new ones then fixing the problems that entails.

Anyway I think we're just being silly, I pretty much agree with you. I agree that Apple will probably not have to worry as much about motherboard design, and that Intel will come up with ideas like SSE etc. not Apple. Apple will just be a little more eager to actually implement them than Microsoft, and a little more obnoxiously in the pot about mobo designs than the others, that's all.

[machinesworking]

pfff:

http://www.uneasysilence.com/os-x-prove ... dinary-pc/

yep i suspect anyone at apple who thinks osx wont be able to run on dells and other bog standard pc's has rather underesimated how driven the wintel based hacking community is

if someone says the can't it bceomes there mission to make sure they can

That happened within a month of the developer machines going out, six months ago. Notice the date of the artical. We'll see if they can stop it from happening with this new release.
Personally I hope not. I want to run an Apple laptop, and a roll your own XP/OSX PC!

[machinesworking]

Just to add, I'm hoping Apple eventually go with a policy of selling the OS unsupported on anything but their machines. this way they can concentrate on the OS, and we the consumer can assemble a list of compatible components. Microsoft waste a lot of time on compatibility issues, I don't want Apple to.

[beej]

I'm pretty sure this will *never* happen.

[egbert]

I'm pretty sure this will *never* happen.

http://www.pcmag.com/category2/0,4148,3574,00.asp

John Dvorak - well known proponent of various crackpot theories - like say the one about Apple using Intel chips - has one about where Steve's head is at.

He postulated a while back that our fruity friends were planning to put MacIntel out there and after it had been hacked and pirated and had taken on a life of its own they would bow to the public's wish and allow people to buy legit versions and install them on x86.

I guess we'll have to wait and see. Don't you think knocking M$ off their perch would thrill the folks at the Loop?

[machinesworking]

John Dvorak - well known proponent of various crackpot theories - like say the one about Apple using Intel chips - has one about where Steve's head is at.

He postulated a while back that our fruity friends were planning to put MacIntel out there and after it had been hacked and pirated and had taken on a life of its own they would bow to the public's wish and allow people to buy legit versions and install them on x86.

I guess we'll have to wait and see. Don't you think knocking M$ off their perch would thrill the folks at the Loop?

Cool, I'm not the only one that thinks it's Apple's back door way of doing this, "gee? I guess we really should be making money off of this, otherwise we'll just be going after these scamps forever? Sorry Microsoft, not trying to threaten you or anything, just trying to make a profit."
My guess is they keep in the hardware business, for people like Pro Tools studio owners, and well designed laptops, and allow this after some "attempts' at stopping it.
Otherwise, wouldn't they shut down all these obvious x86 PC hack sites? It's not like these guys are working on this in private like Krack teams do?

[egbert]

Cool, I'm not the only one that thinks it's Apple's back door way of doing this, "gee? I guess we really should be making money off of this, otherwise we'll just be going after these scamps forever? Sorry Microsoft, not trying to threaten you or anything, just trying to make a profit."

One point against this theory is the new 5 year deal between Redmond and Cupertino - M$ will supply Office for MacIntel but not WMP or Explorer. I don't know if there is a fruity quid pro quo implied here - but I would guess that would not stop the scenario you and Dvorak have forseen.

I remember talking to an engineer I knew about twenty years ago and his prediction was that we would all be running Unix by 1995.

M$ and Apple both headed this off - they tried to go their own way and dominated the desktop with arguably inferior OSs and Unix vendors who didn't understand the consumer market stayed in their niches. WinXP is good enough in a lot of ways - it is just all the crazy-assed securiy gaffes - any rogue piece of code you download can do just about anything to your system (Geez d'yer reckon that might lead to problems?) that make WinNT derived stuff problematic. Between Linux and Apple there is surely going to be some attempt to disturb M$'s hegemony.

I guess the other issue is that computing and consumer electronics are on a collision course so the Sonys and Samsungs of this world might have a bit of say in where this all goes.

[machinesworking]

One point against this theory is the new 5 year deal between Redmond and Cupertino - M$ will supply Office for MacIntel but not WMP or Explorer. I don't know if there is a fruity quid pro quo implied here - but I would guess that would not stop the scenario you and Dvorak have forseen.

Explorer and WMP have already been dropped by Microsoft. The one thing that makes this not that weird is that Microsoft have been running Word on Apple computers since before DOS. Though it does imply that Bill Gates has been told that Apple are going to remain aggressive about hardwiring their OS. My take is that's exactly why Apple are going to "reluctantly" drop their attempts at keeping OSX on only their machines. Basically they are going to use Microsoft tactics against Microsoft.
My take is most people won't switch anyway, people are lazy.

[egbert]

Here's Dvorak on possibility of Apple's OSX going feral

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,1845259,00.asp

[machinesworking]

Here's Dvorak on possibility of Apple's OSX going feral

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,1845259,00.asp

Thanks egbert! That's funny! Exactly my first thoughts after seeing how quickly the developer x86 OSX was hacked! Honestly I hope it's the truth. Microsoft's anti trust lawsuit was the last really interesting drama in the software industry, this would top it!