Slashdot Mirror

This remembers me the centrino bug, with no fix intended.
PAE support is broken on the Dothan (most Centrino) CPU and no fix nor workaround is planned by Intel.
Due to this, kernel with PAE enabled (needed at least for NX support) won't boot on Dothan...
PDF used to be on http://download.intel.com/design/mobile/SPECUPDT/3 0220907.pdf but now I can only find http://www.intel.com/design/mobile/specupdt/302209 .htm which leads to a password protected PDF

This remembers me the centrino bug, with no fix intended.
PAE support is broken on the Dothan (most Centrino) CPU and no fix nor workaround is planned by Intel.
Due to this, kernel with PAE enabled (needed at least for NX support) won't boot on Dothan...
PDF used to be on http://download.intel.com/design/mobile/SPECUPDT/3 0220907.pdf but now I can only find http://www.intel.com/design/mobile/specupdt/302209 .htm which leads to a password protected PDF

ftp://download.intel.com/technology/computing/vpte ch/C97063-002.pdf

Hello. Just to give a bit of an update on this issue...

The iMacs in question were rendered unbootable by trying to load additional modules from Intel's EFI Sample Implementation. It is not known which module is at fault currently.

Once the iMac is unbootable, it doesn't chime, boot, attempt to access media, or display an image on the screen. Attempts to zap NVRAM (cmd-opt-P-R is still supported for this task on Intel-based Macs), remove the motherboard battery and leave the AC power disconnected for an extended period of time, and disconnecting the hard disk do not resolve the issue.

At present, we seem to have a number of difficult situations that prevent the installation of Windows directly on Intel-based Macs:

1. Apple did not include its own EFI shell or other tools to access the EFI with the Intel-based Macs, so the tools used have consisted of Intel's EFI Sample Implementation, and Tianocore's EFI Developer Kit.

2. Apple's EFI implementation does not include CSM (Compatibility Support Module), the BIOS backward compatibility layer necessary for booting 32-bit versions of Windows (pre-Vista), such as Windows XP.

3. 32-bit versions of Windows do not currently support booting an EFI machine. (And the Gateway Media Center machine with EFI people keep talking about boots Windows XP Media Center Edition 2005 in BIOS compatibility mode, not with EFI.)

4. Windows XP 64-bit and Windows Server 2003 64-bit support EFI, but the Intel Core Duo is a 32-bit architecture.

5. Windows Vista does support EFI, but the EFI booter (cdboot.efi) currently does not appear to be functioning, and/or it is looking for, and not finding, information that it is looking for on the installation DVD. It does display the typical Windows "Please press any key to boot from the CD..." message. However, the DVD does not appear to contain the necessary EFI boot partition, and EFI does not support UDF volumes and El Torito booting. (Yes, this is a DVD obtained via official channels.)

6. Mac OS X's startup disk control panel presents a Windows Vista installation on a FAT/FAT32 volume as a valid bootable volume, but Windows Vista does not support booting from a FAT/FAT32 partition, only NTFS. Mac OS X can read NTFS volumes, but not write to them. This is currently the stage we're at now. No, I haven't tried "just hooking up a drive with Vista installed" (as many have asked elsewhere) or forcibly creating an NTFS partition whose contents are an already-installed instance of Vista.

7. grub, elilo, etc., all do not work on the Intel-based Macs at this time.

Eventually, whatever method boots Windows natively will have to have a nice wrapper put around it to make it easy for a normal person to do so, and easily dual boot in addition.

To regurgitate what I've said a bit elsewhere, the real benefit to most people will come from running Windows alongside Mac OS X in a "virtual machine" environment, in a window or even full screen, with, for example, a hotkey to switch back and forth between Mac OS X and Windows. To many users who prefer Mac OS X, particularly in enterprise, academic, and research environments, but who also have the occasional applications (usually administrative) that require Windows, this configuration would be a holy grail of sorts. And in this configuration, Windows wouldn't be running in emulation, but it would be running at essentially the native speed of the underlying hardware (with the exception of graphics and disk I/O performance). It will be *much* faster than any emulation ever has been, and there will no doubt be several open source (qemu, xen, wine) and commercial (vmware, Virtual PC) that will allow running Windows (or Windows software) in various capacities. Intel's Virtualization Technology (VT), allowing multiple operating systems to run in separate hardware "partitions" on one

Hello. Just to give a bit of an update on this issue...

The iMacs in question were rendered unbootable by trying to load additional modules from Intel's EFI Sample Implementation. It is not known which module is at fault currently.

Once the iMac is unbootable, it doesn't chime, boot, attempt to access media, or display an image on the screen. Attempts to zap NVRAM (cmd-opt-P-R is still supported for this task on Intel-based Macs), remove the motherboard battery and leave the AC power disconnected for an extended period of time, and disconnecting the hard disk do not resolve the issue.

At present, we seem to have a number of difficult situations that prevent the installation of Windows directly on Intel-based Macs:

1. Apple did not include its own EFI shell or other tools to access the EFI with the Intel-based Macs, so the tools used have consisted of Intel's EFI Sample Implementation, and Tianocore's EFI Developer Kit.

2. Apple's EFI implementation does not include CSM (Compatibility Support Module), the BIOS backward compatibility layer necessary for booting 32-bit versions of Windows (pre-Vista), such as Windows XP.

3. 32-bit versions of Windows do not currently support booting an EFI machine. (And the Gateway Media Center machine with EFI people keep talking about boots Windows XP Media Center Edition 2005 in BIOS compatibility mode, not with EFI.)

4. Windows XP 64-bit and Windows Server 2003 64-bit support EFI, but the Intel Core Duo is a 32-bit architecture.

5. Windows Vista does support EFI, but the EFI booter (cdboot.efi) currently does not appear to be functioning, and/or it is looking for, and not finding, information that it is looking for on the installation DVD. It does display the typical Windows "Please press any key to boot from the CD..." message. However, the DVD does not appear to contain the necessary EFI boot partition, and EFI does not support UDF volumes and El Torito booting. (Yes, this is a DVD obtained via official channels.)

6. Mac OS X's startup disk control panel presents a Windows Vista installation on a FAT/FAT32 volume as a valid bootable volume, but Windows Vista does not support booting from a FAT/FAT32 partition, only NTFS. Mac OS X can read NTFS volumes, but not write to them. This is currently the stage we're at now. No, I haven't tried "just hooking up a drive with Vista installed" (as many have asked elsewhere) or forcibly creating an NTFS partition whose contents are an already-installed instance of Vista.

7. grub, elilo, etc., all do not work on the Intel-based Macs at this time.

Eventually, whatever method boots Windows natively will have to have a nice wrapper put around it to make it easy for a normal person to do so, and easily dual boot in addition.

To regurgitate what I've said a bit elsewhere, the real benefit to most people will come from running Windows alongside Mac OS X in a "virtual machine" environment, in a window or even full screen, with, for example, a hotkey to switch back and forth between Mac OS X and Windows. To many users who prefer Mac OS X, particularly in enterprise, academic, and research environments, but who also have the occasional applications (usually administrative) that require Windows, this configuration would be a holy grail of sorts. And in this configuration, Windows wouldn't be running in emulation, but it would be running at essentially the native speed of the underlying hardware (with the exception of graphics and disk I/O performance). It will be *much* faster than any emulation ever has been, and there will no doubt be several open source (qemu, xen, wine) and commercial (vmware, Virtual PC) that will allow running Windows (or Windows software) in various capacities. Intel's Virtualization Technology (VT), allowing multiple operating systems to run in separate hardware "partitions" on one

Great. How about attacks on EFI by malware? An iMac costs just a few hundred bucks. Bad enough. But, what about those shiny new Itanium systems with EFI for 10 grants per box?

So many vulnerabilities seem to involve writing past the extents of a data structure (stack, heap, buffer, etc.). But how does this lead to the ability to execute arbitrary code? It would seem that the system must lack an ability to clearly segment memory in the distinct data spaces or to distinguish between data and code.

Perhaps machines need a more secure memory management scheme (such as an execute disable bit or Data Execution Prevention).

Yes, malware could still crash an application or machine (to the extent that the system has inadequate input checking and nongraceful failure modes) but arbitrary code execution wouldn't be possible.

Why don't people use these concepts to plug a vast range of vulnerabilities?

Amd implements it.

So did Intel, after AMD did.

Amd implements it.

So did Intel, after AMD did.

Amd implements it.

So did Intel, after AMD did.

Sitting beside me now are four new-in-box Intel Pro/Wireless 5000 wireless access points.

PC Magazine, 5/21/2002:
"...optional support for 802.11b and a reasonable price make the Intel PRO/Wireless 5000 802.11a Access Point worthy of consideration if you want to be an early adopter of 802.11a."

C|Net, 7/31/2002:
"With its simultaneous support of 802.11a and 802.11b, the Intel Pro/Wireless 5000 LAN dual access point is well suited to open office areas packed with wireless PCs."

2002 price: $449 list according to PC Magazine, $649 according to C|Net.

I got mine from an outfit called surpluscomputers.com for four bucks a piece. Plus $12 shipping. Here's a link to the product if it's still in stock (it is now, but probably won't be after the Slashdotters hit it).

The moral of the story: compatibility with the next standard is fine and dandy, but in three or four years, you're going to look back and either laugh, cry, or hurl.

Processor
Dual-core 64-bit processing power means smooth performance and complete control of your digital media.

Processor
Dual-core 64-bit processing power means smooth performance and complete control of your digital media.

Just within the last 12 months has Intel started releasing chips that focus on lower heat and power.

False. Your statement isn't giving Intel enough credit and is not supported by the numbers. Since the original Banias Pentium M's were released back in March of 2003, we've seen Intel's mobile products have very good performance per watt ratios and overall power usage numbers. In fact, the overall power usage was the lowest in the original Pentium M's out of the entire line. You statement would be correct if you it said this: "...within the last 34 months (i.e. ~3 years) has Intel started releasing chips that focus on lower heat and power."

Data pulled from Intel Product Specifications at http://www.intel.com/

Banias (the normal voltage models-i.e. 1.7 GHz, 1.6 GHz, 1.4 GHz, etc):

Thermal Design Power: 24.5 W (Full speed) / 6 W (Speedstep)
Sleep Power: 1.7 W
Deep Sleep Power: 1.1 W
Deeper Sleep Power: 0.55 W

Dothan (any model #):

Thermal Design Power: 21 W (Full speed) / 7.5 W (Speedstep)
Sleep Power: 3.2 W
Deep Sleep Power: 2.5 W
Deeper Sleep Power: 0.8 W

Core Duo (any standard power model #):

Thermal Design Power: 31 W (Full speed) / 13.1 W (Speedstep)
Sleep Power: 4.7 W
Deep Sleep Power: 3.4 W
Deeper Sleep Power: 2.2 W

The Pentium M chips were a step towards lower power, but the Intel Core Duo that ships in the imac is the first chip that is really ahead of AMD for mobile systems.

Again, False. The first part of that sentence has already been proven false with the numbers I've posted. The second part of your AMD fanboy'ism is also incorrect. AMD offers two TDP ranges in their "Lancaster" single core Turion64 mobile processors: 25 watts and 35watts. As you can see with the data presented above, both of these TDP's are larger than Intel's single core Pentium M offerings which have been available since March 2003. AMD's Turion didn't even arrive on the scene until 2005 which gives Intel a solid two year headstart. What's even more interesting is that more than half of AMD's entire single core Turion line consumes more power than Intel's dual core Core Duo mobile processors. AMD has yet to release their dual core Turion processors. So your statement that the Intel Core Duo is the "first chip that is really ahead of AMD for mobile systems" is complete wrong. Intel has had AMD beat since March of 2003 in the mobile market and still continues to beat it. Please check your facts before posting lies or put an AMD fanboy disclaimer on your posts.

Note: I didn't both including Intel's various Low Voltage and Ultra Low Voltage Pentium M, Core Solo and Core Duo processors that have an even lower TDP than the standard voltage processor numbers I posted above. Adding this information would only serve to futher prove that your statements are wrong.

Bullshit, bullshit, and bullshit...

As I have to keep saying: Bullshit factor too high!

Settle down, Beavis. I'm not disagreeing with your point (I think) that AMD makes competitive CPUs for "thin and light" notebooks. However, I still think your comparison (which you call "as fair as possible") is inaccurate, incomplete, and (therefore) unfair.

You didn't include any links to where you got your numbers,

A minor oversight: http://users.erols.com/chare/elec.htm

That's a nice source. I just bookmarked it. It doesn't list all of the newest CPUs, though.

overstated the Core Solo's power,

Not according to my source, which I trust to provide accurate numbers. Considering that Intel uses a different power rating standard than AMD, it's not fair to compare AMD's spec sheet with Intel's spec sheet. Intel was the one to switch to "Thermal Design Power" when AMD was still listing "Max Power Output", and now that AMD has switched to "Thermal Design Power" Intel changes once again, seemingly trying to make sure direct comparisons are never fair.

Your source apparently made a typo for Core Solo. It's an easy typo to make (37 instead of 27). For the other Intel CPUs in our comparisons, your source's "Thermal Design Power" numbers match Intel's "Thermal Guideline" numbers. I'm sure "Thermal Guideline" has the same meaning as "Thermal Design Power." I don't know why the heck Intel would change the term if it means the same thing. Maybe they think the work "guideline" is clearer than "design power." BTW, "Thermal Design Power" is defined in the "glossary of terms" for Intel's Spec Finder tool as:

The maximum amount of heat which a thermal solution must be able to dissipate from the processor so that the processor will operate under normal operating conditions.

Unfortunately, "Thermal Guideline" is not defined in the glossary (ugh). However, that definition sounds like a "guideline" to me. Your source seems to agree.

and didn't include the Celeron M

What the hell do you think "mCel-2.5G 35W" means?

(Hell) "mCel-2.5G 35W" means Mobile Celeron, a discontinued line of low-cost mobile CPUs based on desktop CPU cores (Pentium III and 4). These CPUs sucked ass and were inappropriate for "thin and light" notebooks. The model you listed is based on the Northwood P4 core, but was "crippled" by halving the L2 cache (down to 256K) and lowering the bus to 400MHz.

"Celeron M" means Celeron M, the current line of low-cost mobile CPUs based on the Pentium M core. These CPUs kick ass and are hardly "crippled" by its halved cache (1MB) and reduced bus (400MHz). Even without SpeedStep, the Celeron M is a high-performing, low-power, and cool CPU that's good for "thin and light" notebooks.

You also neglected to include the low power versions of the Intel CPUs.

That's because the "low power versions" are so vastly slower that it would be completely unfair to throw them in this comparison... Obviously, being incredibly unfair doesn't phase you.

I included LV versions and "lower power" versions of Pentium M and Celeron M for two reasons: (1) AMD apparently doesn't make true "low voltage" (LV) versions, and (2) you included a "lower power" version of T

Bullshit, bullshit, and bullshit...

As I have to keep saying: Bullshit factor too high!

Settle down, Beavis. I'm not disagreeing with your point (I think) that AMD makes competitive CPUs for "thin and light" notebooks. However, I still think your comparison (which you call "as fair as possible") is inaccurate, incomplete, and (therefore) unfair.

You didn't include any links to where you got your numbers,

A minor oversight: http://users.erols.com/chare/elec.htm

That's a nice source. I just bookmarked it. It doesn't list all of the newest CPUs, though.

overstated the Core Solo's power,

Not according to my source, which I trust to provide accurate numbers. Considering that Intel uses a different power rating standard than AMD, it's not fair to compare AMD's spec sheet with Intel's spec sheet. Intel was the one to switch to "Thermal Design Power" when AMD was still listing "Max Power Output", and now that AMD has switched to "Thermal Design Power" Intel changes once again, seemingly trying to make sure direct comparisons are never fair.

Your source apparently made a typo for Core Solo. It's an easy typo to make (37 instead of 27). For the other Intel CPUs in our comparisons, your source's "Thermal Design Power" numbers match Intel's "Thermal Guideline" numbers. I'm sure "Thermal Guideline" has the same meaning as "Thermal Design Power." I don't know why the heck Intel would change the term if it means the same thing. Maybe they think the work "guideline" is clearer than "design power." BTW, "Thermal Design Power" is defined in the "glossary of terms" for Intel's Spec Finder tool as:

The maximum amount of heat which a thermal solution must be able to dissipate from the processor so that the processor will operate under normal operating conditions.

Unfortunately, "Thermal Guideline" is not defined in the glossary (ugh). However, that definition sounds like a "guideline" to me. Your source seems to agree.

and didn't include the Celeron M

What the hell do you think "mCel-2.5G 35W" means?

(Hell) "mCel-2.5G 35W" means Mobile Celeron, a discontinued line of low-cost mobile CPUs based on desktop CPU cores (Pentium III and 4). These CPUs sucked ass and were inappropriate for "thin and light" notebooks. The model you listed is based on the Northwood P4 core, but was "crippled" by halving the L2 cache (down to 256K) and lowering the bus to 400MHz.

"Celeron M" means Celeron M, the current line of low-cost mobile CPUs based on the Pentium M core. These CPUs kick ass and are hardly "crippled" by its halved cache (1MB) and reduced bus (400MHz). Even without SpeedStep, the Celeron M is a high-performing, low-power, and cool CPU that's good for "thin and light" notebooks.

You also neglected to include the low power versions of the Intel CPUs.

That's because the "low power versions" are so vastly slower that it would be completely unfair to throw them in this comparison... Obviously, being incredibly unfair doesn't phase you.

I included LV versions and "lower power" versions of Pentium M and Celeron M for two reasons: (1) AMD apparently doesn't make true "low voltage" (LV) versions, and (2) you included a "lower power" version of T

Bullshit, bullshit, and bullshit...

As I have to keep saying: Bullshit factor too high!

Settle down, Beavis. I'm not disagreeing with your point (I think) that AMD makes competitive CPUs for "thin and light" notebooks. However, I still think your comparison (which you call "as fair as possible") is inaccurate, incomplete, and (therefore) unfair.

You didn't include any links to where you got your numbers,

A minor oversight: http://users.erols.com/chare/elec.htm

That's a nice source. I just bookmarked it. It doesn't list all of the newest CPUs, though.

overstated the Core Solo's power,

Not according to my source, which I trust to provide accurate numbers. Considering that Intel uses a different power rating standard than AMD, it's not fair to compare AMD's spec sheet with Intel's spec sheet. Intel was the one to switch to "Thermal Design Power" when AMD was still listing "Max Power Output", and now that AMD has switched to "Thermal Design Power" Intel changes once again, seemingly trying to make sure direct comparisons are never fair.

Your source apparently made a typo for Core Solo. It's an easy typo to make (37 instead of 27). For the other Intel CPUs in our comparisons, your source's "Thermal Design Power" numbers match Intel's "Thermal Guideline" numbers. I'm sure "Thermal Guideline" has the same meaning as "Thermal Design Power." I don't know why the heck Intel would change the term if it means the same thing. Maybe they think the work "guideline" is clearer than "design power." BTW, "Thermal Design Power" is defined in the "glossary of terms" for Intel's Spec Finder tool as:

The maximum amount of heat which a thermal solution must be able to dissipate from the processor so that the processor will operate under normal operating conditions.

Unfortunately, "Thermal Guideline" is not defined in the glossary (ugh). However, that definition sounds like a "guideline" to me. Your source seems to agree.

and didn't include the Celeron M

What the hell do you think "mCel-2.5G 35W" means?

(Hell) "mCel-2.5G 35W" means Mobile Celeron, a discontinued line of low-cost mobile CPUs based on desktop CPU cores (Pentium III and 4). These CPUs sucked ass and were inappropriate for "thin and light" notebooks. The model you listed is based on the Northwood P4 core, but was "crippled" by halving the L2 cache (down to 256K) and lowering the bus to 400MHz.

"Celeron M" means Celeron M, the current line of low-cost mobile CPUs based on the Pentium M core. These CPUs kick ass and are hardly "crippled" by its halved cache (1MB) and reduced bus (400MHz). Even without SpeedStep, the Celeron M is a high-performing, low-power, and cool CPU that's good for "thin and light" notebooks.

You also neglected to include the low power versions of the Intel CPUs.

That's because the "low power versions" are so vastly slower that it would be completely unfair to throw them in this comparison... Obviously, being incredibly unfair doesn't phase you.

I included LV versions and "lower power" versions of Pentium M and Celeron M for two reasons: (1) AMD apparently doesn't make true "low voltage" (LV) versions, and (2) you included a "lower power" version of T

Bullshit, bullshit, and bullshit...

As I have to keep saying: Bullshit factor too high!

Settle down, Beavis. I'm not disagreeing with your point (I think) that AMD makes competitive CPUs for "thin and light" notebooks. However, I still think your comparison (which you call "as fair as possible") is inaccurate, incomplete, and (therefore) unfair.

You didn't include any links to where you got your numbers,

A minor oversight: http://users.erols.com/chare/elec.htm

That's a nice source. I just bookmarked it. It doesn't list all of the newest CPUs, though.

overstated the Core Solo's power,

Not according to my source, which I trust to provide accurate numbers. Considering that Intel uses a different power rating standard than AMD, it's not fair to compare AMD's spec sheet with Intel's spec sheet. Intel was the one to switch to "Thermal Design Power" when AMD was still listing "Max Power Output", and now that AMD has switched to "Thermal Design Power" Intel changes once again, seemingly trying to make sure direct comparisons are never fair.

Your source apparently made a typo for Core Solo. It's an easy typo to make (37 instead of 27). For the other Intel CPUs in our comparisons, your source's "Thermal Design Power" numbers match Intel's "Thermal Guideline" numbers. I'm sure "Thermal Guideline" has the same meaning as "Thermal Design Power." I don't know why the heck Intel would change the term if it means the same thing. Maybe they think the work "guideline" is clearer than "design power." BTW, "Thermal Design Power" is defined in the "glossary of terms" for Intel's Spec Finder tool as:

The maximum amount of heat which a thermal solution must be able to dissipate from the processor so that the processor will operate under normal operating conditions.

Unfortunately, "Thermal Guideline" is not defined in the glossary (ugh). However, that definition sounds like a "guideline" to me. Your source seems to agree.

and didn't include the Celeron M

What the hell do you think "mCel-2.5G 35W" means?

(Hell) "mCel-2.5G 35W" means Mobile Celeron, a discontinued line of low-cost mobile CPUs based on desktop CPU cores (Pentium III and 4). These CPUs sucked ass and were inappropriate for "thin and light" notebooks. The model you listed is based on the Northwood P4 core, but was "crippled" by halving the L2 cache (down to 256K) and lowering the bus to 400MHz.

"Celeron M" means Celeron M, the current line of low-cost mobile CPUs based on the Pentium M core. These CPUs kick ass and are hardly "crippled" by its halved cache (1MB) and reduced bus (400MHz). Even without SpeedStep, the Celeron M is a high-performing, low-power, and cool CPU that's good for "thin and light" notebooks.

You also neglected to include the low power versions of the Intel CPUs.

That's because the "low power versions" are so vastly slower that it would be completely unfair to throw them in this comparison... Obviously, being incredibly unfair doesn't phase you.

I included LV versions and "lower power" versions of Pentium M and Celeron M for two reasons: (1) AMD apparently doesn't make true "low voltage" (LV) versions, and (2) you included a "lower power" version of T

And that's as fair of a comparison as possible.

Your comparison is unfair, inaccurate, and incomplete. You didn't include any links to where you got your numbers, overstated the Core Solo's power, and didn't include the Celeron M (which is based on the Pentium M core) or Core Duo. You also neglected to include the low power versions of the Intel CPUs.

Here's my attempt to make your comparison more fair and complete:

AMD (W = Thermal Design Power)

• LP mSempron 3300+ (2.0GHz) 25W
• Turion MT-40 (2.2GHz) 25W
• Turion ML-44 (2.4GHz) 35W
• LP mAthlon 64 3000+ (2.0GHz) 35W

vs Intel (W = Thermal Guideline)

• Celeron M LV 383 (1.00GHz) 5.5W
• Celeron M 360 (1.4GHz) 21W
• Celeron M 390 (1.7GHz) 27W
• Pentium M LV 778 (1.6GHz) 10W
• Pentium M 765 (2.10GHz) 21W
• Pentium M 780 (2.26GHz) 27W
• Core Solo T1300 (1.66GHz) 27W
• Core Duo T2600 (2.16GHz) 31W

And that's as fair of a comparison as possible.

Your comparison is unfair, inaccurate, and incomplete. You didn't include any links to where you got your numbers, overstated the Core Solo's power, and didn't include the Celeron M (which is based on the Pentium M core) or Core Duo. You also neglected to include the low power versions of the Intel CPUs.

Here's my attempt to make your comparison more fair and complete:

AMD (W = Thermal Design Power)

• LP mSempron 3300+ (2.0GHz) 25W
• Turion MT-40 (2.2GHz) 25W
• Turion ML-44 (2.4GHz) 35W
• LP mAthlon 64 3000+ (2.0GHz) 35W

vs Intel (W = Thermal Guideline)

• Celeron M LV 383 (1.00GHz) 5.5W
• Celeron M 360 (1.4GHz) 21W
• Celeron M 390 (1.7GHz) 27W
• Pentium M LV 778 (1.6GHz) 10W
• Pentium M 765 (2.10GHz) 21W
• Pentium M 780 (2.26GHz) 27W
• Core Solo T1300 (1.66GHz) 27W
• Core Duo T2600 (2.16GHz) 31W

And that's as fair of a comparison as possible.

Your comparison is unfair, inaccurate, and incomplete. You didn't include any links to where you got your numbers, overstated the Core Solo's power, and didn't include the Celeron M (which is based on the Pentium M core) or Core Duo. You also neglected to include the low power versions of the Intel CPUs.

Here's my attempt to make your comparison more fair and complete:

AMD (W = Thermal Design Power)

• LP mSempron 3300+ (2.0GHz) 25W
• Turion MT-40 (2.2GHz) 25W
• Turion ML-44 (2.4GHz) 35W
• LP mAthlon 64 3000+ (2.0GHz) 35W

vs Intel (W = Thermal Guideline)

• Celeron M LV 383 (1.00GHz) 5.5W
• Celeron M 360 (1.4GHz) 21W
• Celeron M 390 (1.7GHz) 27W
• Pentium M LV 778 (1.6GHz) 10W
• Pentium M 765 (2.10GHz) 21W
• Pentium M 780 (2.26GHz) 27W
• Core Solo T1300 (1.66GHz) 27W
• Core Duo T2600 (2.16GHz) 31W

And that's as fair of a comparison as possible.

Your comparison is unfair, inaccurate, and incomplete. You didn't include any links to where you got your numbers, overstated the Core Solo's power, and didn't include the Celeron M (which is based on the Pentium M core) or Core Duo. You also neglected to include the low power versions of the Intel CPUs.

Here's my attempt to make your comparison more fair and complete:

AMD (W = Thermal Design Power)

• LP mSempron 3300+ (2.0GHz) 25W
• Turion MT-40 (2.2GHz) 25W
• Turion ML-44 (2.4GHz) 35W
• LP mAthlon 64 3000+ (2.0GHz) 35W

vs Intel (W = Thermal Guideline)

• Celeron M LV 383 (1.00GHz) 5.5W
• Celeron M 360 (1.4GHz) 21W
• Celeron M 390 (1.7GHz) 27W
• Pentium M LV 778 (1.6GHz) 10W
• Pentium M 765 (2.10GHz) 21W
• Pentium M 780 (2.26GHz) 27W
• Core Solo T1300 (1.66GHz) 27W
• Core Duo T2600 (2.16GHz) 31W

And that's as fair of a comparison as possible.

Your comparison is unfair, inaccurate, and incomplete. You didn't include any links to where you got your numbers, overstated the Core Solo's power, and didn't include the Celeron M (which is based on the Pentium M core) or Core Duo. You also neglected to include the low power versions of the Intel CPUs.

Here's my attempt to make your comparison more fair and complete:

AMD (W = Thermal Design Power)

• LP mSempron 3300+ (2.0GHz) 25W
• Turion MT-40 (2.2GHz) 25W
• Turion ML-44 (2.4GHz) 35W
• LP mAthlon 64 3000+ (2.0GHz) 35W

vs Intel (W = Thermal Guideline)

• Celeron M LV 383 (1.00GHz) 5.5W
• Celeron M 360 (1.4GHz) 21W
• Celeron M 390 (1.7GHz) 27W
• Pentium M LV 778 (1.6GHz) 10W
• Pentium M 765 (2.10GHz) 21W
• Pentium M 780 (2.26GHz) 27W
• Core Solo T1300 (1.66GHz) 27W
• Core Duo T2600 (2.16GHz) 31W

And that's as fair of a comparison as possible.

Your comparison is unfair, inaccurate, and incomplete. You didn't include any links to where you got your numbers, overstated the Core Solo's power, and didn't include the Celeron M (which is based on the Pentium M core) or Core Duo. You also neglected to include the low power versions of the Intel CPUs.

Here's my attempt to make your comparison more fair and complete:

AMD (W = Thermal Design Power)

• LP mSempron 3300+ (2.0GHz) 25W
• Turion MT-40 (2.2GHz) 25W
• Turion ML-44 (2.4GHz) 35W
• LP mAthlon 64 3000+ (2.0GHz) 35W

vs Intel (W = Thermal Guideline)

• Celeron M LV 383 (1.00GHz) 5.5W
• Celeron M 360 (1.4GHz) 21W
• Celeron M 390 (1.7GHz) 27W
• Pentium M LV 778 (1.6GHz) 10W
• Pentium M 765 (2.10GHz) 21W
• Pentium M 780 (2.26GHz) 27W
• Core Solo T1300 (1.66GHz) 27W
• Core Duo T2600 (2.16GHz) 31W

And that's as fair of a comparison as possible.

Your comparison is unfair, inaccurate, and incomplete. You didn't include any links to where you got your numbers, overstated the Core Solo's power, and didn't include the Celeron M (which is based on the Pentium M core) or Core Duo. You also neglected to include the low power versions of the Intel CPUs.

Here's my attempt to make your comparison more fair and complete:

AMD (W = Thermal Design Power)

• LP mSempron 3300+ (2.0GHz) 25W
• Turion MT-40 (2.2GHz) 25W
• Turion ML-44 (2.4GHz) 35W
• LP mAthlon 64 3000+ (2.0GHz) 35W

vs Intel (W = Thermal Guideline)

• Celeron M LV 383 (1.00GHz) 5.5W
• Celeron M 360 (1.4GHz) 21W
• Celeron M 390 (1.7GHz) 27W
• Pentium M LV 778 (1.6GHz) 10W
• Pentium M 765 (2.10GHz) 21W
• Pentium M 780 (2.26GHz) 27W
• Core Solo T1300 (1.66GHz) 27W
• Core Duo T2600 (2.16GHz) 31W

And that's as fair of a comparison as possible.

Your comparison is unfair, inaccurate, and incomplete. You didn't include any links to where you got your numbers, overstated the Core Solo's power, and didn't include the Celeron M (which is based on the Pentium M core) or Core Duo. You also neglected to include the low power versions of the Intel CPUs.

Here's my attempt to make your comparison more fair and complete:

AMD (W = Thermal Design Power)

• LP mSempron 3300+ (2.0GHz) 25W
• Turion MT-40 (2.2GHz) 25W
• Turion ML-44 (2.4GHz) 35W
• LP mAthlon 64 3000+ (2.0GHz) 35W

vs Intel (W = Thermal Guideline)

• Celeron M LV 383 (1.00GHz) 5.5W
• Celeron M 360 (1.4GHz) 21W
• Celeron M 390 (1.7GHz) 27W
• Pentium M LV 778 (1.6GHz) 10W
• Pentium M 765 (2.10GHz) 21W
• Pentium M 780 (2.26GHz) 27W
• Core Solo T1300 (1.66GHz) 27W
• Core Duo T2600 (2.16GHz) 31W

And that's as fair of a comparison as possible.

Your comparison is unfair, inaccurate, and incomplete. You didn't include any links to where you got your numbers, overstated the Core Solo's power, and didn't include the Celeron M (which is based on the Pentium M core) or Core Duo. You also neglected to include the low power versions of the Intel CPUs.

Here's my attempt to make your comparison more fair and complete:

AMD (W = Thermal Design Power)

• LP mSempron 3300+ (2.0GHz) 25W
• Turion MT-40 (2.2GHz) 25W
• Turion ML-44 (2.4GHz) 35W
• LP mAthlon 64 3000+ (2.0GHz) 35W

vs Intel (W = Thermal Guideline)

• Celeron M LV 383 (1.00GHz) 5.5W
• Celeron M 360 (1.4GHz) 21W
• Celeron M 390 (1.7GHz) 27W
• Pentium M LV 778 (1.6GHz) 10W
• Pentium M 765 (2.10GHz) 21W
• Pentium M 780 (2.26GHz) 27W
• Core Solo T1300 (1.66GHz) 27W
• Core Duo T2600 (2.16GHz) 31W

And that's as fair of a comparison as possible.

Your comparison is unfair, inaccurate, and incomplete. You didn't include any links to where you got your numbers, overstated the Core Solo's power, and didn't include the Celeron M (which is based on the Pentium M core) or Core Duo. You also neglected to include the low power versions of the Intel CPUs.

Here's my attempt to make your comparison more fair and complete:

AMD (W = Thermal Design Power)

• LP mSempron 3300+ (2.0GHz) 25W
• Turion MT-40 (2.2GHz) 25W
• Turion ML-44 (2.4GHz) 35W
• LP mAthlon 64 3000+ (2.0GHz) 35W

vs Intel (W = Thermal Guideline)

• Celeron M LV 383 (1.00GHz) 5.5W
• Celeron M 360 (1.4GHz) 21W
• Celeron M 390 (1.7GHz) 27W
• Pentium M LV 778 (1.6GHz) 10W
• Pentium M 765 (2.10GHz) 21W
• Pentium M 780 (2.26GHz) 27W
• Core Solo T1300 (1.66GHz) 27W
• Core Duo T2600 (2.16GHz) 31W

Intel's AMD64 instruction set is SLOWER than their IA32 instruction set.

Really? A 64-bit Pentium D is slower than a 386SX?

Oh, what you meant was "Intel's current chips that implement AMD64 run slower in 64-bit mode than in 32-bit mode". That doesn't necessarily mean future implementations will be slower in 64-bit mode. The chips using the "Next Generation Microarchitecture" might not have that problem.

(Well, technically, that might be "implement EM64T". The Wikipedia article on EM64T, at least, claims there are some differences, although, if it's correct, some of them went away in newer chips, and others are just standard AMD vs. Intel differences, e.g. the lack of 3DNow! instructions in EM64T.)

Then I think, for most of your customers, the chipset is more important than the CPU. Both Intel and AMD make reliable and high performing CPUs. Until fairly recently, I think Intel chipsets (especially on Intel motherboards) have been more reliable than chipsets made for AMD CPUs. Of course, lame PC manufacturers can mess this all up with bad power supplies and motherboard designs.

I would think most of your customers that are asking for your advice would value reliability over performance, since current 64-bit Celerons and Semprons will likely have enough performance to last the life of their computers. For system reliability, I might recommend Intel from a good manufacturer and model line. The drawback of most low-cost retail Intel PCs is the lack of a PCI-Express x16 slot (although GMA 950 might be good enough), so buyers should shop carefully or get one built.

AMD offers significantly more performance per dollar, but buyers should be warned about common flakey chipsets. The newest chipsets from NVIDIA and ATI should be recommended.

A few months ago, I think a 64-bit Socket 775 Intel 945G chipset based platform would have been the best choice for many consumers. Today, an NVIDIA GeForce 6100 chipset based platform would probably be the better choice. This might change again when low-cost desktop Yonah PCs are released, again when Socket M2 Semprons arrive, again when Conroe-based Celerons arrive, etc.

From that Intel link:

Intel® Precision Cooling Technology is available on selected Intel® Desktop Boards and is OS-independent; it works on Windows* or Linux* based systems. Here are just a few of the advantages of Intel® Precision Cooling technology:

• Fan speeds adjust real time according to system temperatures
• Reduces unnecessary noise & energy consumption
• OS-independent - not affected by a software failure or virus
• Separate thermal zones for CPU & system temperature
• Default setting programmed into BIOS
• Controlled by an advanced management ASIC

As others have pointed out, this is incorrect and sounds suspiciously like FUD. Intel chipsets have had temperature-controlled fans since at least the 845 chipset, which was released in 2001. From that link to Intel's site:

With Intel® Precision Cooling Technology, your system fans will automatically adjust their speeds according to the internal chassis temperature. If your system temperature is within normal operating specifications, your fans will operate at reduced speeds, thereby reducing noise and power consumption.
...

• Fan speeds adjust real time according to system temperatures
• Reduces unnecessary noise & energy consumption
• OS-independent - not affected by a software failure or virus
• Separate thermal zones for CPU & system temperature

As others have pointed out, this is incorrect and sounds suspiciously like FUD. Intel chipsets have had temperature-controlled fans since at least the 845 chipset, which was released in 2001. From that link to Intel's site:

With Intel® Precision Cooling Technology, your system fans will automatically adjust their speeds according to the internal chassis temperature. If your system temperature is within normal operating specifications, your fans will operate at reduced speeds, thereby reducing noise and power consumption.
...

• Fan speeds adjust real time according to system temperatures
• Reduces unnecessary noise & energy consumption
• OS-independent - not affected by a software failure or virus
• Separate thermal zones for CPU & system temperature

start with getting in to efi. i dont know if its the same key-combo as open firmware (command-option-o-f) or something new (any apple/efi docs anywhere? i couldn't find anything on the apple site). this intel tutorial is the best thing i've found regarding efi from an end-user standpoint yet - and ive been reading through it for the past half hour to get myself up to speed... http://www.intel.com/software/products/college/efi shell/ some people with macintel imacs on the macnn forums (currently down) are trying to boot off of the vista 5270 build with no success yet - but i have a feeling they are clueless about getting into/using efi. everyone was saying 'hold down C! hold down C!' until someone mentioned that the key to boot off of optical media has now switched to D. people have tried that and it doesn't appear to boot. i don't have access to vista 5270, but people mentioned a hidden 'BOOT' folder on their hard drive root with Microsoft/EFI boot files. are these same files available on the installation media? regardless, once knowledgable people can get in to efi and start querying it about boot media can progress be made... oh, and to all of the people complaining/questioning why people want to dual boot windows on a macintel i have one word for you: steam actually i could rant on about all kinds of other windows-only software. for me, windows has the best emulators around. having tested a few mac emulators/ports, it appears most of them are rubbish - especially from the input (controller) support as well as the display output support (monitor resolutions, scaling filters, etc).

It's interesting to note that the new iMacs are using a standard Intel 945 Series chipset, and an Intel 82801GBM southbridge, as well as other standard Intel chipsets and features:

Other interesting hardware features can be discovered by browsing the output of system_profiler, kextstat, and ioreg .

Of note:

- Full 802.11a support is present, though unadvertised, as well as 802.11b/g
- Intel High Definition Audio is used
- the iMac's optical drive does have dual layer support, unlike the ultra slimline 9mm drive used in the MacBook Pro
- the iSight is USB
- a TPM entry is present in ioreg
- com.apple.Dont_Steal_Mac_OS_X is an active kernel extension

Agreed. I was checking this out a week back (and perhaps should have gotten first dibs on a story at Slashdot).

Although I'm a bit of a techie but I haven't looked at processors in a while. So I visited the intel website and I found it impossible to penetrate the permutations of the set {Pentium, D, Dual, Core, HT, Extreme}. They mean nothing to me except, perhaps, sound cool.

So I figred that they MUST have some kind of comparison chart so that I can make some sense of this. Really had to dig for it, but I found this
So, er .. that still doesn't help me. I want to know how fast / powerful / capable a processor is. Who cares whether it has HT or if it's Exxxtreeeme!

Look at the fine print at the bottom of any product comparison page - "Intel processor numbers are not a measure of performance. Processor numbers differentiate features within each processor family, not across different processor families. See http://www.intel.com/products/processor_number/ for details."

Go ahead and click it. You will find :
"The processor number is not a measurement of performance, nor is it the only factor to consider when selecting a processor.

The digits themselves have no inherent meaning, particularly when looking across processor families. For instance, 840 is not "better" than 640 simply because 8 is greater than 6.

Furthermore, linear increments between processor numbers may not indicate linear feature advancements. For example, the differences in processor features between an Intel® Pentium® M processor 760 and an Intel® Pentium® M processor 765 will not be the same as between an Intel® Pentium® M processor 765 and an Intel® Pentium® M processor 770, even though both pairs of processors are separated by an increment of five digits.

Processor numbers do not represent specific system configurations and do not replace system-level benchmarks."

WTF?!

Yes, perhaps it is a good idea to start naming processors after "features" because focus has started shifting towards better design of processors (rather than just brute force speed). But then again, I would like some solid benchmark to compare all these processors.

I say they should just measure in FLOPS and leave it be. What they have now is just sad.

Agreed. I was checking this out a week back (and perhaps should have gotten first dibs on a story at Slashdot).

Although I'm a bit of a techie but I haven't looked at processors in a while. So I visited the intel website and I found it impossible to penetrate the permutations of the set {Pentium, D, Dual, Core, HT, Extreme}. They mean nothing to me except, perhaps, sound cool.

So I figred that they MUST have some kind of comparison chart so that I can make some sense of this. Really had to dig for it, but I found this
So, er .. that still doesn't help me. I want to know how fast / powerful / capable a processor is. Who cares whether it has HT or if it's Exxxtreeeme!

Look at the fine print at the bottom of any product comparison page - "Intel processor numbers are not a measure of performance. Processor numbers differentiate features within each processor family, not across different processor families. See http://www.intel.com/products/processor_number/ for details."

Go ahead and click it. You will find :
"The processor number is not a measurement of performance, nor is it the only factor to consider when selecting a processor.

The digits themselves have no inherent meaning, particularly when looking across processor families. For instance, 840 is not "better" than 640 simply because 8 is greater than 6.

Furthermore, linear increments between processor numbers may not indicate linear feature advancements. For example, the differences in processor features between an Intel® Pentium® M processor 760 and an Intel® Pentium® M processor 765 will not be the same as between an Intel® Pentium® M processor 765 and an Intel® Pentium® M processor 770, even though both pairs of processors are separated by an increment of five digits.

Processor numbers do not represent specific system configurations and do not replace system-level benchmarks."

WTF?!

Yes, perhaps it is a good idea to start naming processors after "features" because focus has started shifting towards better design of processors (rather than just brute force speed). But then again, I would like some solid benchmark to compare all these processors.

I say they should just measure in FLOPS and leave it be. What they have now is just sad.

Agreed. I was checking this out a week back (and perhaps should have gotten first dibs on a story at Slashdot).

Although I'm a bit of a techie but I haven't looked at processors in a while. So I visited the intel website and I found it impossible to penetrate the permutations of the set {Pentium, D, Dual, Core, HT, Extreme}. They mean nothing to me except, perhaps, sound cool.

So I figred that they MUST have some kind of comparison chart so that I can make some sense of this. Really had to dig for it, but I found this
So, er .. that still doesn't help me. I want to know how fast / powerful / capable a processor is. Who cares whether it has HT or if it's Exxxtreeeme!

Look at the fine print at the bottom of any product comparison page - "Intel processor numbers are not a measure of performance. Processor numbers differentiate features within each processor family, not across different processor families. See http://www.intel.com/products/processor_number/ for details."

Go ahead and click it. You will find :
"The processor number is not a measurement of performance, nor is it the only factor to consider when selecting a processor.

The digits themselves have no inherent meaning, particularly when looking across processor families. For instance, 840 is not "better" than 640 simply because 8 is greater than 6.

Furthermore, linear increments between processor numbers may not indicate linear feature advancements. For example, the differences in processor features between an Intel® Pentium® M processor 760 and an Intel® Pentium® M processor 765 will not be the same as between an Intel® Pentium® M processor 765 and an Intel® Pentium® M processor 770, even though both pairs of processors are separated by an increment of five digits.

Processor numbers do not represent specific system configurations and do not replace system-level benchmarks."

WTF?!

Yes, perhaps it is a good idea to start naming processors after "features" because focus has started shifting towards better design of processors (rather than just brute force speed). But then again, I would like some solid benchmark to compare all these processors.

I say they should just measure in FLOPS and leave it be. What they have now is just sad.

Here are more opinions to add to my parent post above. I just re-visited the Intel web site. It is now possible to see a side-by-side comparison chart of Intel processors.

However, the Intel server took exactly 2 minutes 24 seconds to display the chart. It leaves a bad impression when a processor manufacturer has a slow web site. (The obvious joke the visitor may invent while waiting for the Intel server is "Maybe Intel should use AMD processors for their servers?")

Notice the abundant use of Javascript, which is especially inconvenient with tabbed browsers. To see the entire comparison, it was necessary to click inside several dainty list boxes, most requiring the visitor to scroll the list.

Note that no Intel part numbers are shown on the chart, and there is no link to them. If you want to call Tech Data and order Intel processors, the first thing the Tech Data sales representative says is, "What is the Intel part number?". In the past, at least, and probably now, there were variations of each processor that had different part numbers. So, if you don't have the part number, there is no way to know exactly what you are ordering.

Note that the power requirements for each processor are not shown on the chart. This is an old marketing trick: If there is negative information about the product, try to prevent your prospective customers from knowing it. Over the long term, of course, that destroys trust. With multi-billion dollar processor fabrication plants, Intel must be concerned about the long term. However, out of touch marketing people typically have no knowledge of technical things, and don't want any, and are not concerned about the health of their companies, maybe because they believe that could get jobs elsewhere.

I see that most of Intel's product line is still called Pentium.

My impression of Intel is "intelligent people performing badly". That kind of problem needs to be resolved at the top. Intel needs, in my opinion, a socially sophisticated CEO.

Don't forget, these are the same geniuses who decided to name a product "Viiv". So I wouldn't put anything past them, idiocy-wise.

wow you must be some kind of psychic. i can see the emacs vs viiv jokes now.

lets not forget that the mobile CPU in the Centrino package is a 'Celeron M' - which in its self

Are you sure? Check it out:

http://indigo.intel.com/compare_cpu/default.aspx?f amilyid=2&culture=en-US
http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/releases/20 040105comp.htm

Classically, the celeron has always been a pentium with some of the cache neutered away. I don't really follow the cpu market, so grain of salt and all that, but it appears to still be the case that the Celeron(and Celeron M) is the 'value' edition. As far as Centrino goes, it is just a really great marketing initiative to create consumer demand for intel chipsets and wireless products.

lets not forget that the mobile CPU in the Centrino package is a 'Celeron M' - which in its self

Are you sure? Check it out:

http://indigo.intel.com/compare_cpu/default.aspx?f amilyid=2&culture=en-US
http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/releases/20 040105comp.htm

Classically, the celeron has always been a pentium with some of the cache neutered away. I don't really follow the cpu market, so grain of salt and all that, but it appears to still be the case that the Celeron(and Celeron M) is the 'value' edition. As far as Centrino goes, it is just a really great marketing initiative to create consumer demand for intel chipsets and wireless products.

...and lets not forget that the mobile CPU in the Centrino package is a 'Celeron M'...

Actually, can we forget this? Intel puts Pentium M's into the Centrino, NOT Celeron M. I don't know where you heard that, but you're a lowsy nerd.

So couldn't they include the functionality in EFI CSM to enable some compatibility for Open BIOS calls, but not the functionality for ... Award, Phoenix, etc.?

First, what you are not going to try and insult me again like your first response?

and to answer your question

No!

They said everything was stock Intel. That is not one of the current solution Intel offers. The backward compatibility is either an all or nothing deal.

By the way, regardless of the vendor, all BIOS include some common things. That is what the compatibility module supports.

http://developer.intel.com/technology/efi/

The next generation of all of Intel's processors will indeed be 64-bit.

Although the linked article does say what you claim, Intel has made 64bit processors for over 15 years (well, at least the FPU in the i860), and still makes embedded processors at 16bit. http://www.intel.com/products/embedded/processors. htm.

Why does the CPU roadmap linked only discuss the x86 chips? Although, it is their bread and butter, they do make a number of other chips that do have their own roadmaps as well.

Kinda strange I think.

I don't jest.

Intel Core Duo is not a 64-bit processor, and does not not support EM64T (x86-64).

The next generation of all of Intel's processors will indeed be 64-bit.

According to Intel (warning: pdf), all Intel Core Duo processors include VT, but there are qualifications to have it enabled. Some folks who have systems with Intel Core Duo and who have claimed no VT might simply have systems that don't have it enabled. It remains to be seen whether VT is enabled on Apple's shipping machines.

Apple hasn't done anything to preclude Windows, or any other OS, from being installed on the Intel-based Macs. That is a perfectly accurate statement. Apple Vice President Phil Schiller's two direct quotes on the subject, the most recent which was made on January 10, 2006, can be seen here. Intel has also specifically said that Apple will not be using proprietary chipsets and/or processors, and they'll just represent standard Intel offerings.

Windows XP would directly boot and install on the Developer Transition Kit platform because it was just a standard Intel motherboard and processor, and also used a standard Intel BIOS.

However, the shipping Intel-based Macs use EFI (Wikipedia article), Intel's "next generation of BIOS". (more info)

Windows XP 32-bit does not currently support EFI for booting. Windows XP 64-bit does, but Intel Core Duo is not a 64-bit chip. Now, there are a bunch of other variables, such as whether or not Apple's current EFI implementation offers BIOS backward-compatibility, and so on, but it's clear that regardless, EFI is the future, and it's only a matter of time before the PC world at large transitions to EFI. Further, Windows Vista does support EFI. See here for Microsoft's presentations on EFI, particularly the first two links.

That said, dual booting is intensely annoying anyway, and the really interesting thing will be able to just run Windows (or some other x86 OS) and Mac OS X side-by-side.

What we will *definitely* see are "Virtual PC"-like programs that let you run Windows alongside OS X (in a Window, or taking over the screen, etc., with a hotkey to flip back and forth, for example).

It's important to note this will NOT be emulation: Windows (or other x86 OS) will run at essentially the native speed of the underlying hardware (with certain exceptions). There could even be direct access to video, with support for things like DirectX.

vmware already has a version for Mac OS X in development, and Microsoft has already announced they will be developing a version of Virtual PC for Intel-based Macs that one can only presume will be a virtual machine. Then there are things like QEMU, Xen, etc. The Darwin/Mac OS X version of WINE, DarWINE, has even been working under betas of Mac OS X for Intel. Now that Intel Macs are shipping, it will only be a matter of weeks/months before we have several options for running Windows itself, and/or Windows applications at essentially the native speed of the underlying hardware.

And since Intel Core Duo also supports Intel's VT hardware virtualization, the possibilities of future virtual machine technology are even more interesting. But the bottom line is that Apple is again leading the way with the adoption of technologies like EFI and ExpressCard. Naturally, it will take a little while for Windows to catch up. ;-)

Apple hasn't done anything to preclude Windows, or any other OS, from being installed on the Intel-based Macs. That is a perfectly accurate statement. Apple Vice President Phil Schiller's two direct quotes on the subject, the most recent which was made on January 10, 2006, can be seen here. Intel has also specifically said that Apple will not be using proprietary chipsets and/or processors, and they'll just represent standard Intel offerings.

Windows XP would directly boot and install on the Developer Transition Kit platform because it was just a standard Intel motherboard and processor, and also used a standard Intel BIOS.

However, the shipping Intel-based Macs use EFI (Wikipedia article), Intel's "next generation of BIOS". (more info)

Windows XP 32-bit does not currently support EFI for booting. Windows XP 64-bit does, but Intel Core Duo is not a 64-bit chip. Now, there are a bunch of other variables, such as whether or not Apple's current EFI implementation offers BIOS backward-compatibility, and so on, but it's clear that regardless, EFI is the future, and it's only a matter of time before the PC world at large transitions to EFI. Further, Windows Vista does support EFI. See here for Microsoft's presentations on EFI, particularly the first two links.

That said, dual booting is intensely annoying anyway, and the really interesting thing will be able to just run Windows (or some other x86 OS) and Mac OS X side-by-side.

What we will *definitely* see are "Virtual PC"-like programs that let you run Windows alongside OS X (in a Window, or taking over the screen, etc., with a hotkey to flip back and forth, for example).

It's important to note this will NOT be emulation: Windows (or other x86 OS) will run at essentially the native speed of the underlying hardware (with certain exceptions). There could even be direct access to video, with support for things like DirectX.

vmware already has a version for Mac OS X in development, and Microsoft has already announced they will be developing a version of Virtual PC for Intel-based Macs that one can only presume will be a virtual machine. Then there are things like QEMU, Xen, etc. The Darwin/Mac OS X version of WINE, DarWINE, has even been working under betas of Mac OS X for Intel. Now that Intel Macs are shipping, it will only be a matter of weeks/months before we have several options for running Windows itself, and/or Windows applications at essentially the native speed of the underlying hardware.

And since Intel Core Duo also supports Intel's VT hardware virtualization, the possibilities of future virtual machine technology are even more interesting. But the bottom line is that Apple is again leading the way with the adoption of technologies like EFI and ExpressCard. Naturally, it will take a little while for Windows to catch up. ;-)