Intel Developer Macs Outperform G5s

Good news! by lucaschan.com · 2005-07-13 10:45 · Score: 3, Informative

Although, Firefox doesn't run particularly fast on my G5 compared to my run-of-the-mill XP box at work.

Re:Good news! by marmoset · 2005-07-13 11:00 · Score: 5, Informative

That's becaus you're running the wrong builds. :)

Re:Dual Boot by cappadocius · 2005-07-13 10:54 · Score: 3, Informative

On the opposite side of the coin, does that mean that future Mac OS can run on any Intel (and AMD?) machine?

No. The version of OS X on the developer Macs may be compatible with other PCs, but the final product will be tied to an special Intel DRM chip that will prevent it from running on other machines.

The developer machines are loaners and will go back to Apple in two years, and will not continue to be supported.

--

omnia tua castra sunt nobis

Re:The real question by networkBoy · 2005-07-13 10:55 · Score: 4, Informative

I get 7 hours on my p4-m notebook.
so I'm thinking they may see an increase.
-nB

--
whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump

Re:Intel Mac's poor hd performance by oberondarksoul · 2005-07-13 11:12 · Score: 4, Informative

Methinks you've been had. This is an update of a quite famous rant made about one of the earlier PPC Macs, the 8600/300, as found here.

--
And tomorrow the stock exchange will be the human race

Re:Boot times disk/network bound by b1t+r0t · 2005-07-13 11:14 · Score: 4, Informative

"Although there's usually a few seconds between the machine powering up and the apple logo appearing. What's going on during that time?"

Memory test.

--

--
"Open source is good." - Steve Jobs
"Open source is evil." - Microsoft

Re:Big-endian vs. little-endian by javaxman · 2005-07-13 11:19 · Score: 4, Informative

This is a problem only when it comes to data I/O to non-native programs ( meaning PPC code running under Rosetta ), really, isn't it ?

It's likely that Rosetta is pulling a lot of tricks, I/O level and otherwise, and when you're reading data from a hard disk or the network, using a few spare CPU cycles to swap some bytes around isn't going to be noticed *at all*, because if you're doing that sort of I/O bound processing, you'll likely have plenty of CPU cycles laying around to swap bytes in memory.

If you're not talking about Rosetta, but about multi-platform applications more generally, the long answer is in the Universal Binary Programming Guidelines PDF. The short answer is that you abstract away from your own code byte-order issues where possible, and where not possible, you otherwise have separate code paths that do the right thing depending on the targeted platform.

Seasoned developers who coded applications under NeXTStep have been through this once before, remember. This is not a new problem. We've been here before... I avoid binary data formats where it's reasonable to do so.

Re:Boot times disk/network bound by hazee · 2005-07-13 11:38 · Score: 4, Informative

Surely the OS has to know what memory is in use, otherwise there would be chaos. How would it allocate blocks of memory if drivers were "secretly" allocating their own blocks?

As for detecting new hardware - that's such a rare event that it should be treated as an exception, rather than the norm. Most days I boot my computer, there's a marked absence of strange new hardware...

Re:Boot times disk/network bound by Johnno74 · 2005-07-13 11:47 · Score: 3, Informative

Both techniques (discarding unused memory and compressing used memory) are used by windows xp, which is why it is so fast to hibernate/resume (less than 10 secs for my p3/512mb laptop)

Re:Boot times disk/network bound by gabebear · 2005-07-13 12:06 · Score: 3, Informative

Yes, the other factors are that the dev kits don't support any kind of special features. It's standard PC BIOS so it doesn't have to bother to search any of the many other places/buses a standard mac can boot from.

If your default boot disk is available then a normal Mac doesn't take anytime looking for other boot devices. These Intel dev Macs do support booting from USB drives so that is not the case anyway.

Also, since plugins cannot be emulated, there is no way for anyone to install kernel extensions that slow down the boot times of OS X.

OSX kernel extensions are very rare. Almost no program uses them except Norton products(anti-virus and disk doctor). I recommend staying away from Norton stuff for this reason and using Alsoft's Disk Warrior. Third party kernel extensions are a bad idea on any OS.

In other words, the speed these people think they're seeing are actually do to a horrific lack of features.

What features are lacking?? The Intel dev Macs have Firefox, iPhoto, iDVD, and Quicktime installed. The average user may install some extra dashboard widgets and a driver or two, but I doubt that would add more than a couple seconds to boot time.

Re:It *has* been stated in an official capacity by Shawn+Parr · 2005-07-13 12:07 · Score: 3, Informative

They actually state that it will only run on Apple sold machines, they do not specifically state THEIR DRM'D MACHINES

Rather than using DRM, if they use specific altered BIOS and/or a specific chipset then that is all that is necessary. The OS will not have the drivers/ability to work on other hardware.

Apple will most likely still be designing their own MB's, even if they do include Intel chips, so this is a very easy way for them to maintain sales on their own, still technically proprietary, machines. DRM may be used, but if it does then it will probably be a second line of attack, not the primary.

--
Shawn's Tech Articles

Developer Transition System photos by MarcoPon · 2005-07-13 12:42 · Score: 3, Informative

As seen here on Macity.it:

Bye!

--

SeqBox

Re:Boot times disk/network bound by Rosyna · 2005-07-13 13:15 · Score: 5, Informative

If your default boot disk is available then a normal Mac doesn't take anytime looking for other boot devices. These Intel dev Macs do support booting from USB drives so that is not the case anyway.

What makes you think they support booting from USB drives?

OSX kernel extensions are very rare. Almost no program uses them except Norton products(anti-virus and disk doctor). I recommend staying away from Norton stuff for this reason and using Alsoft's Disk Warrior. Third party kernel extensions are a bad idea on any OS.

Uhm, I hope you realize that apple includes many as well that aren't exactly usable on these Dev kits. Such as Bluetooth kexts, ATI kexts (or Nvidia kexts), Airport kexts, netboot, FWTDM kexts, Audio kexts (there are 8 audio kexts loaded on my G5), CHUD kexts, fan control kexts, slew, voltage, sensor kexts, and other kinds of kexts that either lack the hardware or software support on the Intel Dev Kits.

Then for third party kexts there are Logitech Drivers, Norton Utilities kexts, Virtual PC kexts, the Ambrosia kext, DiskWarrior kexts, and many other third party drivers and kexts that shouldn't be loading at startup and shouldn't even be kexts but are.

What features are lacking?? The Intel dev Macs have Firefox, iPhoto, iDVD, and Quicktime installed. The average user may install some extra dashboard widgets and a driver or two, but I doubt that would add more than a couple seconds to boot time.

What makes you think these dev kits have either iDVD or Firefox installed on them? Did you see iDVD in use during Steve Jobs' WWDC keynote?

See above for a large list. You don't need to load a kext for hardware that doesn't exist.

Not more than they are already by LFS.Morpheus · 2005-07-13 13:32 · Score: 3, Informative

I think it will impact sales per se, but not any more then it is already affecting sales. Let me explain.

I bought a 15" Powerbook in September 2003 - this system is a G4 at 1.25 GHz. I love it but I would really like something faster (and with a better graphics chip) so it could be a real desktop replacement. But, this simply doesn't exist. Today's fastest powerbooks are still G4s at 1.67 GHz - an increase of just 34% in nearly 2 years. This isn't enough to make me buy a new machine. The way it was looking, I was waiting for Powerbook G5s - but it wasn't happening (and now, of course, it won't happen).

I am guessing that the significantly faster machines (both desktops and notebooks) with significantly help Apple sales, but will not hurt them more than the lack of speed was already. Increases in performance will correlate to sales, and if IBM was unable to deliver but Intel can, than I think it will help Apple immensely. If people need an Apple box they'll buy one, but right now they're just too slow or too expensive for people to consider (i.e., the fast machines are too expensive).

I look forward to finally replacing my Powerbook with a nice speedy Intel-powered machine in a year or two, and I bet many Apple users will be with me. The new speed will then make it a lot easier to get new switchers on board.

--
The space unintentionally left unblank.

G4 optimized Firefox builds by green+pizza · 2005-07-13 13:48 · Score: 5, Informative

G4 Optimized Firefox 1.1 pre-alpha nightlies (fast!)
http://homepage.mac.com/krmathis/

Re:Dual Boot by sydlexius · 2005-07-13 15:45 · Score: 4, Informative

For instance, as ubiquitous as Creative Labs hardware is, Apple can't support it because it's really low quality compared to Apple's on board audio (designed by Bang Olufsen)

I won't get into the debate about the quality (or lack therof) of Creative's products, except to say that there is a thriving market for aftermarket audio products for the Mac platform (M-Audio being one such vendor).

My point of contention with your post is your assertation that Apple employs the aid of Bang and Olufsen for its built-in audio. While searching on Google reveals others using superlatives that compare Apple's design to the afformentioned company's products, there is no evidence of collaboration. There are aftermarket products made for lines such as the iPod, but that's as close as it gets.

A few more little known facts: Apple uses all Bose speakers even down to the smallest speakers in their systems. And Bose designs the case section where the speaker will be housed in order to provide high quality, room filling sound no matter what system you have.

Furthermore, Bose has only had a limited relationship with Apple, starting and ending with the PowerMac 6400 family. And for the record, the logevity of this particular piece of design has been lacking. Apple has collaborated with other companies on their speaker design, such as utilizing Harman Kardon enclosures/speakers starting with the iMac DV.

Your references to startup tones are tangential, more a matter of taste and style than metrics. Apple succeeds in the the fields of arts primarily because of their decent first-party applications, and additionally because of their ISVs and aftermarket hardware. Many creative types still call the Mac home, and I don't think it's because of trendy start-up tones or hardware companies.

As to Apple's success and appeal, I wholly agree it is due in large part to the bottom-to-top control they have of the platform. I may have made mistakes in calling you out on some of these facts you are presenting. I have spent nearly 10 years working in and around Apple's various offerings, and have admired their industrial design (with a number of exceptions). That said, I would like to think that whatever zeal that I may have for them is grounded in reality. If you can find reference to any of your above claims, I would appreciate that they be presented for sake of perusal.

Slashdot Mirror

Intel Developer Macs Outperform G5s

16 of 829 comments (clear)