Slashdot Mirror
Intel Mac OS X Catches Up With Older Brother
RetrogradeMotion writes "Apple is now one step closer to the Intel transition. According to the OSx86 Project, a recently leaked installation DVD of Mac OS X 10.4.3 reveals that the Intel version is in sync with the PowerPC version - the two are now identical. Initially, "OSx86" was substantially behind its PPC counterpart, but the recent update makes it ready for the public. The article also notes that Apple has continued to learn from hackers' efforts to crack the operating system and has greatly strengthened the TPM protections."
Anyone know if this will run on regular Intel based hardware, or only a Mac-specified one?
It's a posting in a blog, which is a far cry from an "article".
"I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey
...the protections?
They're always going to be cracked until they can implement some form of hardware protection, which they may eventually do once x86 macs are out there, but... what do they gain at the moment by doing this?
So does anyone else find it funny that we get an Apple-Intel update on within 6 hours of a "Intel processors get their asses kicked" story?
Time for the next hack to come along.
Until every byte of code verifies for itself that it is running on genuine Apple hardware before it will execute, I'm not sure if Apple can ever close this door.
Maybe this experiment will eventually prove that TPM itself is impossible to achieve when more people are working to break your system than are employeed by Apple to defend it.
Hey, Steve, want to reconsider that move to Intel now?
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
If they don't want me to install OS X on my x86 Athlon, that's fine. I'm not going to pay a premium for their os AND hardware. I'll stick to my $400 whitebox with dual boot windows/linux.
Zomg Torrent Plz!!!!!1
"The article also notes that Apple has continued to learn from hackers' efforts to crack the operating system and has greatly strengthened the TPM protections."
TPM protections = OSX locked to Apple hardware
The article also notes that Apple has continued to learn from hackers' efforts to crack the operating system and has greatly strengthened the TPM protections.
As you may or may not know, TPM stands for "Tensão Pré-Menstrual", which is the Portuguese term for Pre-Menstrual Syndrome. Exactly why hackers would want to get by those TPM protections is beyond me.
When you have nothing left to burn you must set yourself on fire
That's because they never were Intel bashers. They are all Steve fans, and what Steve says - RULES! (Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain. He's still living in yesterday's truths.)
It's rather a lot like Scientology. You just have to change the names of the players, and keep forking out the money.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Since its a blog...& its new phenomenon we should start using new acronyms .....blog .....chat/converstation .....podcast (or maybe listen to..??) ..press release ... rights
... holy bible
like
RTFB -
RTFC -
RTFP -
RTFPR -
RTFR-
RTFHB -
anyway..comin to the discussion new OS called iWin??
so this article basic states "Apple developers continue doing what they're paid to do"....
Whoopdy doo....
In other news Apple file tax returns, Google serve lunch and Microsoft develop something else which kinda sucks....
Can anyone explain to me in plain English how the protection works?
To all of you that thought an outdated version of the OS was actually "leaked".
:-)
Congrats, Apple just made you an unpaid security consultant.
I want an OS that I can multi-boot MS-Windows and Linux on that runs on commodity hardware. If I want to put it on a $300 box or a $3000 box shouldn't matter to Apple. I'd rather pay $1000 for hardware - Apple's or another vendor's functional equivalent - and $500 for the OS and bundled software than $1500 for a functionally-equivalent Mac with the software built into the price.
Otherwise, "Mac OSX on TPM'd Intel" is just another way of saying "Mac OSX on a proprieTary PlatforM." Not interested.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
I can see you don't know anything about modern x86 CPU's
Fork over $1500 and they'll give you (er, LEASE you) a full development kit and compatible hardware.
http://developer.apple.com/
http://developer.apple.com/membership/promo.html
The revolution will NOT be televised.
When in doubt, I just default to the old standby: STFU
The DVD's been out for days.
It's only an insult if it's not true.
If you want to your app to run on PPC *and* Intel, you need to create a fat binary. It seems like it would be difficult to create a binary using an Intel machine that would run on both processors.
You can grab Mac OS X for x86 from bittorrent, although my recommendation is to call Apple just so that they know that people have this problem. (They will loan you a developer's workstation for a chunk of change.)
--Sam
I don't think it will be possible to stop people from getting it running on non-apple hardware. It's just going to be a constant battle. There are too many people working on breaking it. Look at the Xbox, with its whole encryption/authentication scheme. That was broken after a few months.
Most of the people installing it on non-apple hardware probably wouldn't purchase apple hardware anyway. It's a good, non-official way, for apple to gain marketshare. The highschool/college kids of today are the decision makers of tomorrow. Get them hooked on OSX now (even if it's an illegal copy) means that they will likely influence their friends/family and employer to go with it.
Maybe apple should stop spending money on the resources to add copy protection and just let it go. If someone comes up with a good solution in the future, they can just roll it out in an update. In the meantime, let people get hooked.
Need Free Juniper/NetScreen Support? JuniperForum
I own a G3 yosemite running LinuxPPC, it's my firewall,IMAP,WWW,PHP server.
And I own a VIA C3 Samuel running Linux x86, it's my firewall,IMAP,WWW,PHP,Shoutcast,DNS,File server. So whats your point?
"This is Zombo Com, and welcome to you who have come to Zombo Com" - www.zombo.com
on using the cover sheets on the TPM report?
"I say we take off, nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure."
Define "article," then. Seriously.
Continued improvements in both releases of 10.4.3 include an optimized table of system values organized in a hash known as a "registry," a simplified four-color theme, and a sophisticated AI-based Automator avatar known as "Guru" who appears at the bottom of your screen to anticipate Automator tasks by asking questions such as "It looks like you're writing a paper."
"Made up/misattributed quote that makes me look smart. I am on
Is this Slashdot? Don't mean to be rude, but I thought everybody knew what was going on with the Apple on Intel switch. Apple has no intention of supporting OS X on any Intel hardware they did not manufacture. Sure you can get a pirate copy of a previous cracked version, but who knows how well it will work or how long it will last. If you want to develop for Intel based Macs, then you have to get one of the Apple developer machines (G5 cases with Intel processors). There are no other Intel based Macs available and OS X is not officially supported on any other hardware.
Maybe this experiment will eventually prove that TPM itself is impossible to achieve when more people are working to break your system than are employeed by Apple to defend it.
TPMs were never intended to be used for what Apple is using them for, thus the cracks only prove that a TPM isn't very useful for things it wasn't designed to do. The real TPM features like sealing and attestation still haven't been cracked.
Uh, they did? Intel bashers have been grumbling since the switch and are still confused about why. Especially after the release of the dual-core PPC and the recently announced low-power PPC from another company.
"Sufferin' succotash."
The never ending battle of maintaining TPM is just standard operating procedure. Apple certainly is not counting on that to protect their profits because even with a hardware piece in the finished x86 Macs, hardware can be hacked and cloned too. Don't be too surprised if there are reports of knockoff x86 Mac clones in east Asia once the new Macs hit the streets. So why keep up the battle? It's mostly political/diplomatic I would guess, the same reasoning behind the copy limits in iTunes. Anyone with a little knowledge can get around the copy limits in iTunes, but Apple has to keep them in there to keep RIAA happy.
Either way, Apple can win. If x86 Macs and the OS are widely cloned and pirated, they gain marketshare relative to Windows and then go nuts cracking down on the cloners and pirates. Some portion of the masses hooked on the pirated MacOS become paying customers and on the development side, more software is created to serve greater demand. Played right, there's definitely money to be made. But of course they can't be too obvious about this since pissing off Microsoft at this stage would not be a good thing.
To the making of books there is no end, so let's get started
All Apple has to do is start suing people. Stranger things have happened before (RIAA and MPAA comes to mind,) so don't be so quick to dismiss this possibility.
ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
it really seems funny to me how all Intels bashers (aka. Mac fans) suddenly became Intel enthusiasts
There were Intel Bashers because Pentium technology (the P4 in particular) was pathetic compared to AMD and PPC offerings of the time.
Some of these people are becoming Intel cheerleaders because 1) Intel managed to surpass the performance of the G5, and has closed the gap a bit on AMD. 2) Early reports of the chips expected to come out of Intel around Q3 of next year are remarkable.
"Mac fans" are actually rather split on the subject. Those who acknowledged that PC's were generally faster machines most of the time for most tasks could not be happier with the Intel switch. Those who rambled endlessly about "the Megahertz myth" (even after x86 chips were clearly lapping the G5) are still sore about it, and hoping that Jobs will change his mind about dropping PPC sometime between now and 2007.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
Um, no.
Either ppc or x86 machines can produce FAT^H^H^Huniversal binraries.
- Adam L. Beberg - The Cosm Project - http://www.mithral.com/
Leaked install DVD? HAH! That's for scriptkiddies. Where's the leaked kernel source code?
--
make install -not war
it's amazing how stuff always manages to get "leaked". It's too bad some extra money didn't get "leaked" in to my bank account. I suppose it's a good way to get stuff tested without being responsible for it's results.
"it really seems funny to me how all Intels bashers (aka. Mac fans) suddenly became Intel enthusiasts"
While that may be true for some, I for one think the Intel move is shaping up to be a huge mistake. While I was at first willing to accept that transition, the more I see in regards to Intels recent failures, the more I don't like the shape of things to come in Apples future.
It's quite unfortunate that Apple chose not to go with the Cell and that IBM couldn't be bothered to deliver a laptop capable G5 in a reasonable timeframe.
Personally, I look forward to seeing the benchmarks between G5's and x86 Macs.
As I expect a rather sad and painfully ironic day. Where we see year old hardware outperforming the new gear when it comes to Apples core market... photo and video professionals.
What I have to ask is, why Intel?
At only 3% marketshare, I think AMD would have been quite capable of meeting their supply requirements.
If anything good comes from the Intel changeover in the immediate future, it will be the resurrection of the PowerBook, which has been left out in the cold to die thanks to IBM and their empty promises.
Anyone know what the status of the iLife apps is?
Final Cut Pro?
I'd love to cut my DVD encoding time down but I can't justify getting a new G5 for the 6-10 months we'll be waiting for the new CPUs.
The revolution will NOT be televised.
Do you really think that they'd move backwards in transition? The Mac Mini is the first to receive Intel chips, to allow for Intel to come up with a really high end, professional workstation processor for the intel Power Macs in 2007.
But I agree, the current systems are great. I bought my G5 one month before the announcement. I was initally pissed, thinking this "investment" was going to depreciate rapidly to nothing. The universal binaries, plus the fact that the PPC architecture will be supported till 2008(+) made me feel better about my purchase. I love my G5 and it's definitely worth getting.
I am pretty mush a mac zealot, but I have never had anything against Intel. Microsoft on the other hand. . .
-= Who are The Headlocks? =-
I mean the beauty of OSX Macs is the tie between beautifully designed, robust, classy hardware and a Unixoid OS with eyecandy UI. If one runs illegal OSX in some crappy consumer PC, there is no support, no quarantee, nothing. The experience is kaput. I'd rather run Linux in a mainstream PC than a warexxored no-support hacked OSX.
'Once scientists, even the dim-witted social scientists, get muzzled, the Western Civilization is finished.' - oldhack
And now, you poor soul, you will be inundated with x86 fanboys that will handily point out to you that their beloved its-cheap-and-is-the-only-thing-I've-ever-known platform is indeed a RISC one by some stretch of imagination and sufficiently crappy values of RISC.
Of course, they're ignoring the fact that it can't handle emulating a real RISC architecture while a real RISC architecture can quite easily handle the x86 (see slowness of PearPC vs. speedy VirtualPC).
As for your plans, they sound like a good idea. I have two Mac Minis and they're both quite speedy, despite the inane ramblings of naysayers that complain that it's not fast enough to play KillDieShootBurn 2005 Tournament Ultra Mega Death World War 2 Space Nazi Edition or whatever. I plan to buy the last PPC PowerMac they make, whenever that is. Hell, I'm still not convinced that the x86 Macs are a sure thing. I have an odd feeling they might end up as a market test run and a failed product (like the G4 Cube).
Everyone wants a way to make it run on generic Intel hardware. The thing is, even if you could do that, OS X drivers are not going to be available for 95% of your periphrials. What good is running the OS with no network, sound, or perhaps even video?
"The problem with internet quotations is that many are not genuine" -Abraham Lincoln
Apple is on the cutting edge of making sure their OS runs on the slowest CPUs possible. For a while that was PPC, back when Intel was kicking ass and taking names, and Motorola couldn't find their ass with both hands. But now that IBM is starting to pop out high speed multi-core PPC chips, it's time to find a new slow chip.
;-)
Face it, Apple is cursed, what ever chip they use is doomed to be second rate. If intel was smart, they would have kept their distance
And then you have to pay the premium to get the non-crippled hardware. To much of a premium for me.
So Apple is dedicating enough resources to make it difficult to run OS X on a non-Apple box, but isn't wasting it's time and money trying to totally secure it.
Brilliant
The people hacking OS x86 for non-Apple hardware aren't going to buy Macs anyway, they are in it for some other technical purpose.
The people who want OS X for business will go legit - too much risk for a company to steal like that.
The people who want OS X for a home aren't going to either know how to or want to take the time to fuss with some illicit download of the OS that won't be supported.
So the extreme hackers get OS X without buying an Apple box and maybe they even develop some cool apps with their pirated copy of Xcode too.
The big winner is still Apple (and OS X users).
I only came here to do two things; kick some ass, and drink some beer...looks like we're almost out of beer.
CockRubey (173196) is teh gay!!!
FREAKIN' LOAL DUDES!!!!!!
20721
http://developer.apple.com/darwin/
I'd bet Apple knows that TPM will never be 100% successful and that that is OK by them (although I doubt they would admit it). People who really want to _try_ OS X will get a free hacked copy. People that really want to _use_ OS X in a production environment will buy it. I doubt that many people will want hacked version of OS X if they know that it means potential instabilities, lack of updates (or hassles to get updates), etc.
Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
The thing is, even if you could do that, OS X drivers are not going to be available for 95% of your periphrials. What good is running the OS with no network, sound, or perhaps even video?
Because it will make Linux look that much better!
Funny? More like sad.
The reactions of the hardcore Mac loonies is sickening. IBM is beating the shit out of Intel while Intel just keeps delaying and canceling chips. The premier Intel OEM Dell is having huge troubles. And the Mac loonies just keep singing lalalalalala the world will be full of butterflies and rainbows next year cuz Steve told me I should hate IBM and love Intel.
Fucking losers.
1) None of these cheerleaders were vocal about the Intel surpassing G5 untils Jobs admitted it in this very backhanded way.
2) Early reports about chips coming out in next year's Q3 have always been remarkable.
3) But apparently (2) is not even relavant because of (1). So much so that Intels run softwares through an emulator as well as PPC without the emulator. So I guess Intel is already substantially ahead of PPC even with the Pentium core. Or are you saying G5 is slower than G4 because P4 was slower than G4 but faster than G5. The logic is priceless.
Sound will be a problem. Graphics will be a problem. Those two things, only because nobody buys a new sound chipset or graphics chipset to put in their Macs. But everything else will be OK.
... but it should acutally worry Intel. Apple must have a pretty darn portable source base to be able to move to a radically different architecture this fast. And... the more you port, the easier it gets, as all the architecture-specific cruft gets whittled down to smaller and smaller pieces.
Apple is in an excellent position to say to Intel: "What have you done for us lately?", and knowing Intel as I do, I am sure they are already fully aware of that at decision making levels. Apple is not just talking transition, they are shipping code, and anybody can see that they could do it again without breaking stride.
So, my net take-away is this: 1) Intel is motivated to give Apple what they need, and 2) Apple users should not fear Apple switching again if it looks like it would benefit their users.
If you want to write software that works cross-platform try looking into wxWidgets library (http://www.wxwidgets.org/)
Intel OS X 10.4.3 is still a 32-bit operating system, whereas the PPC iteration is 64-bits. One step forward, one step back.
it really seems funny to me how all Intels bashers (aka. Mac fans) suddenly became Intel enthusiasts
They're not Intel enthusiasts. Every Mac developer I've talked to wishes that IBM had gotten its act together, but they're OK with the Intel switch since it's really just an implementation detail.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
You RISC/CISC kids need a new fucking line - this one was already beat to death back when Apple switched from 68K to PPC about ten years ago. I know when you went to the first week of Intro to Computer Architecture they taught you that term, and you know what, that's really neat, but are you sure you should be making MULTIPLE THOUSAND DOLLAR purchasing decisions based on a 15-20 year old ONE WORD DESCRIPTION OF ENTIRE PROCESSOR ARCHITECTURES?
Don't you think maybe - JUST MAYBE - the subject has a little more depth to it than that? BTW, I hope you respond to this with the words "IBM PC" or "Megahertz Myth" because that would be FRESH and AWESOME just like YOU.
The same way people get hardware to work on Windows -- By using a Driver Development Kit provided by the operating system manufacturer.
The G5, at least, isn't that efficient. I just bought a brand new PowerMac G5 (dual core 2.3GHz). It's certainly a fast machine, but for almost everything I do, its slower than the 2.2Ghz dual-core Athlon X2 that's sitting next to it. For compiling code, it's about 70% as fast as the X2 system. For SciMark, it ranges from 95% as fast (for the small in-cache dataset), to 80% as fast (for the large in-memory dataset). For nbench,if you leave out one really awful score that's probably the result of a bad compiler optimization, its about 80% as fast. These were all done with GCC 4.0, of course. The 970MP SPEC benchmarks suggest that if I used XLC (and EkoPath on the X2 to be fair), I could probably get it to be 90% as fast in integer as the X2 and 25% faster in floating-point, but considering those scores is entirely an act of intellectual mastrubation, since most stuff on OS X is compiled with GCC or CodeWarrior anyway.
Of course, I love the machine to death, because of OS X, but the way I see it, Apple is going to gain a good deal of performance by moving to x86.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
There is also third group, that is pissed by the switch, but don't care about PPC vs x86. They are not happy, because switching to intel means:
1) upgrading your apps (more $$$ out of pocket)
2) being stuck with old version and emulation (because you can't do 1) due to vendor being out of business) - hopefully it is not classic or altivec app.
This is yet another switch that breaks binary compatibility. The first m68k-to-ppc was briliant, the pef-to-mach was not so briliant and the ppc-to-x86 is going to suck.
Screw you Apple for forcing me to upgrade threadmill.
Interesting how many different perspectives one can get from trying to characterize something as fluffy as a demographic like "mac fans into the Mhz Myth". I would have said that this group feels that Intel ditching the P4 architecture and creating multicore CPUs with good oomph-per-watt is a complete validation of the viewpoint that clockspeed-at-all-costs was a losing direction.
The "cue the foo posts in 3, 2, 1..." posts will commence with no subsequent foo posts in 3, 2, 1...
Speaking of VMWare and its ilk, does anyone care to predict if OSX will run on top of Linux or other OS's? Can the TPM functions be faked out?
The world is made by those who show up for the job.
There's a TON of cheap, crappy hardware out there that you can throw into your x86 box. I'm talking hardware that doesn't work, works slowly, causes problems with other hardware, acts flakey, etc. Apple built their entire business off of hardware that just works. Windows has tried for years to make that kludge of hardware easier to install and configure to almost no avail. I imagine Apple doesn't want to fight that same fight. Apple will actually be expected to win that fight. If some hacker wants to go out and get the latest graphics card running on a Mac, I imagine Apple would care less. If someone is Asia starts putting OS X on cheap, crappy hardware and passing them off as Macs, I imagine Apple will be a little more concerned. The software can't just work if the hardware doesn't just work.
I would tend to disagree. I installed one of the old OSx86 installs a few months back. I enjoyed playing with OS X and getting familiar with it, but I wanted more. With the limited amount of driver support I was sort of out of luck. Last week I bought a Mac Mini and have enjoyed using that. So I am an OSx86 hacker who bought a Mac.
Anybody else?
The point is that the 5% of your peripherals that are supported are very common. Looking at the Intel HCL, I know I could easily dig up several of those cards (lying around the house). Most onboard AC/97 soundcards seem to be supported, which is what is used on the Mac anyway. The only sticky point is video (only Intel 900GMA cards are accelerated), and perhaps SATA (nForce4 SATA isn't supported, most PATA controllers are). Firewire and USB are standard EHCI and OCHI, so that's all good. What more does your average user have?
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
It's easy; Intel ships chips, IBM struggles to meet demand. That's the beginning and end of the story.
It's quite unfortunate that Apple chose not to go with the Cell
Yeah, the Cell and it's completely branch-pessimizing architecture would have run a general purpose OS just great
And it's not as though it's a big port job to switch to AMD if Intel doesn't shape up. They're binary compatible. That's why the switch is a good thing; two competing, competent vendors to choose from with no porting cost if you switch between.
You don't remember the merciless derision of the Pentium II? The "The G4 is faster than the fastest PII"? It is so deeply ironic that the Yonah chip that will replace the G4 has almost the exact same execution core as the PII that Mac users made so much fun of.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
I didn't know that was a synonym for "download via bittorrent".
Free Hans!
Thanks. I looked into wxWidgets but decided that GTK was a slightly better choice. Both have their faults, GTK just integrated better with a library that I happen to be using.
GUI aside, I still need to test other components and I don't have or care to shell out for a developer "kit." I guess I'm SOL
The dual core PowerPC brings IBM to parity with year-old AMD hardware. I have a dual-core 2.3, and a dual 2.0Ghz Opteron would be entirely competitive (win in integer, win most floating-point, lose some media-processing). The dual core 2.2 Athlon64 in the machine next to it is a step up in almost every benchmark I've tried.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
The Cell is not good for mainstream computers. It's way too hard to write software for, and moving to Cell probably would have meant re-writing all the current Mac applications. The Cell isn't really just an upgraded PowerPC chip. Instead it's mostly built for very specialized applications. I even have doubts it was a good choice for the PS3 seeing as how much work publishers are having to put into making PS3 games.
the only good apples are the ones covered in caramel.....
;-)
mmmmm caramel apple....
anyway i like macOSx, but i dont ant anything where I cant build my own machine to run it. otherwise i would have been using solaris back in the win95 days. i used it at work, it would have been convenient, but i couldnt afford a sun box. thats how i ended up first finding a reason to try redhat linux actually
now since solaris STILL doesnt PROPERLY support x86 i still stick with redhat.
sometimes, i wonder if i'm the only conservative on teh intarweb. ah well, back to mah hogs and warmongerin'....
"Slashdot, where telling the truth is overrated but lying is insightful."
Of course they can't and don't expect to. Their goal is to make sure it does not effect profits. People will always hack and pirate and Apple can't stop them. Their goal is to make it hard enough that most people won't bother and so that 99.9% of users would rather use a Apple system than deal with hacking another system to sort of work. Heck people ran Mac OS in emulators on x86 hardware years and years ago. It just was never enough to make any difference in the marketplace. Do you think Apple cares if 500 hackers get OS X sort of running on commodity boxes? Hell no, these people would probably never have bought a legitimate copy anyway and even if they would have it is not worth the effort to lock the system down more just to sell 500 more copies. Anyone who thinks more than a tiny percentage of the market will be running a hacked version is quite mistaken.
I agree, I have seen OS.X for Intel installed and running on a random PC laptop (and that was an older OS.X version with less security) and the problem isn't just the effort involved in cracking OS.X and getting it to work. It is the fact that once you have it installed and working all sorts of hardware, from a simple USB key to the display card and the CD/DVD recorder, don't work 100%, some programs won't work and what does work is often unstable. All in all you have to pour more effort into installing a hacked OS.X and keeping it going on a random PC (and it's not a given that your random PC will work very well enough for OS.X to even boot) as you would getting Linux to work and keeping it working (and Linux at least is practically guaranteed to boot on your random PC and likely to work better). So why bother?
Only to idiots, are orders laws.
-- Henning von Tresckow
Bullshit. I remember when the G4 vs PII debate was particularly hot in the mid/late 1990s. The mantra there was that PowerPC was better, not about performance-per-watt. Well, fancy multicore oomph-per-watt chip that everyone is salvating is a warmed over version of the PII that the Mac folks found so entertaining.
With regards to CPUs, the Mac folks were, to put it simply, wrong. The G4 was never better than the PII, and the G5 was overtaken by the Opteron as soon as it hit 2.0GHz.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
uh, more like 5%
intel graphics - check
nvidia graphics - check
ati graphics - check
intel usb - check
intel on-board audio - check
ice envy audio - check
decklink video - check
usb mass storage - check
1394 mass storage - check
usb HID - check
palm tungsten - check
usb printers - check
atto scsi - check
adaptec scsi - check
intel sata - check
i guess if you run it on an n-force you're screwed to some extent, but really... 95%? drop that FUD.
I did not say it would be impossible. I said it would be hard. Do you normally port an application without testing it? Granted, the GUI is the same; the processor is completely different.
--Sam
Not all of us became Intel enthusiasts. I, for one, will not be buying any Macs with Intel processors in them. My home is an Intel-CPU-free zone. I'm sure there are a few smaller chips that end up sneaking in, but there are no Pentiums of any sort. I have PPC Macs and AMD PC's. And it'll stay that way. Intel can take a flying leap.
``The article also notes that Apple has continued to learn from hackers' efforts to crack the operating system and has greatly strengthened the TPM protections.''
Good! The harder they work on keeping people from using it, the less effort they can put in making it good, and the fewer developers will come to the platform.
To me, this says that Linux is going to improve compared to OS X, both because Apple is investing effort in making their OS worse instead of better, and because they will fail to attract as many hackers as they could.
I already switched from OS X to Linux because I find it technically superior, so with this development coming up I can see Linux kill another Unix. Although, I have to say, Apple developers work miracles on OS X, so I can also see OS X not getting killed by Linux.
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
But the problem is, compare it to the Pentium 4 on your desk, and there's not really that much difference. In my opinion, we'll only see if there was any value to the switch when we see what Intel puts out next year. Hopefully it will be nice, it's pretty certain they'll have the laptop area, but desktops are another matter.
I don't see what the issue here is... OS X can now run on PPC and IA86 architectures. No matter which one flops, the OS can still be run on the other hardware. This means Apple can use the best supplier for the job, instead of using the *only* supplier for the job like they used to. Wake me up when Apple actually starts buying one chip or the other in quantity, and we find out that specific chip has issues.
Except they're going with Intel, not AMD... sigh...
(See recent /. discussion on the poor performance of the dual-core Xeons)
Your god may be dead, but mine aren't!
You'd think that apple would wake up and get the message people are sending about the desire for platform obscurity. Think about it
-> Action: Apple announces move to Intel
-> Reaction: A lot of excitement about running os x on commodity hardware
-> Action: Apple starts leaking information about TPM
-> Reaction: A lot of interest in how to break it and run it on commodity hardware
In general companies tend to do better when they give consumers what they want. If Apple wants to make money on the hardware, it should be simple
So you're fucked anyway, since there's no usable port of GTK to OS X.
At the time, it was accurate.
Roughly speaking, the advancement graph of Intel's stuff has been a steady slope (this all being drastically simplified--it's only good as comparison between Intel's stuff and the PowerPC as made by IBM and Motorola), whereas the PowerPC has gone on more of a step-chart. At certain points the PowerPC leaped past the Pentium competitor, sometime dramatically (introduction of the G4, introduction of the G5), while at other points it has just stayed on a step for sustained periods of time while the Pentium keeps on marching (late G4, G5 after introduction).
Apple just decided to get off the rollercoaster. I'm not sure I agree, but I can see the reasons.
Your points are right on and that's what's been causing my unease. I could live with an Intel PowerBook that's at least 2X the speed of my old PowerBook and they may indeed be the first to come out, especially since the last releases had such minimal upgrades. On the other hand, I like the idea of getting a nice G5 as it's faster, been thoroughly sorted-out by now, my existing software will run, they'll still be supported, etc.
:-)
The vider stuff is a sideline for me and it's not like I'm making enough money to really need the max turnaround, etc. but it sure would be nice! Especially the HD import.
So it's all *your* fault if I drop $3k tonight.
The revolution will NOT be televised.
Woudn't they just cancel each other out, since funny is +1 and OT is -1?
Isn't it time to organize for a Class Action Suit against Apple and Intel. To me it's an open and shut case of one or both companies trying to eliminate/restrict the consumers choice of what one does with the hardware purchased. At the same time - another scenario is that Apple is simple grabing the media to promote the fact that Apple O$ can run on an Intel PC - nothing like billions of dollars of free advertising. And will then turn around and sell the Apple OS to run on any hardware. In the meantime, I'm sure that DVD Jon (or some else) will force the issue into the courts.
Err ... while you are correct that digg.com is a moronic crap-pit, the Apple-fanbois here are no less disgusting.
What's even worse, Slashdot has lots of comments from professional, Apple-employed astroturfs who mod down everything that is slightly non-positive about Apple-products. They get a certain contingent of modpoints from Taco's corporate-support-team.
This news means that I'm surely one step closer to dumping windows altogether from my system and get one of those Mac babies.
So what you're saying is that you're waiting until the Intel version of Mac OS runs well enough so that you can format your PC's harddrive and buy a Mac?
Cell is not some magical architecture that would solve everything. Cell is good at what it is good at, and general purpose computing is not it (at least compared to other offerings). When you have (or covet) a hammer, then all you'll see is nails, even if they're really screws.
try "pedant"
"I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey
1. I personally consider the TPM (Intel motherboard DRM) to be a form of "hardware protection."
2. From Apple's point of view, the intention is not necessarily to build an OS that is uncrackable. It's to build an OS that is so difficult to crack, or so dysfunctional when cracked, that few will bother.
what do they gain at the moment by doing this
That's a very important question. I personally believe that the answer is "practice." The very first OS X for Intel release had copy protection. Every update since then has been "strengthened." By the release version, those protections might very well meet #2 above.
why they didn't go with AMD? mobility chips?
Let me point something out about this post that no one noticed (no I wasn't the one who made the post)
"If they don't want me to install OS X on my x86 Athlon, that's fine. (Emphasis mine)
*coughs*
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
I have a DTK with 10.4.3, so some notes from someone with an actual clue:
1.) The PPC version of 10.4.3 is NOT a 64-bit OS as several commenters claim. It's a 32-bit OS with some 64-bit math libraries.
2.) While 10.4.3 Intel may have "caught up" to the PPC version, it's still far from release quality. For example, Spotlight seems to be seriously broke and not functioning correctly in Mail.app, iTunes is still a PPC app, Safari crashes often, and Bonjour is still a bit borked.
Does that make Steve Jobs L. Ron Hubbard or Tom Cruise? Or is Steve the ancient civilization of Aliens? Either way, if buying an iPod means I can have sex with Katie Holmes, I'm in.
When OSX for Intel comes out, I plan on building a new machine that pretty much copies Apple hardware. CPU/Video Card/HD, etc -- so you'll have the same drivers. Same ram and everything too.
Then what are they going to do? It will save me god knows how much on Apple's blatantly overpriced hardware.
Look at what Microsoft did with Windows: they let Windows be freely pirated, and now they dominate the desktop.
The world is starved for an O/S for 80x86 that its software engineering quality matches the user experience quality. Linux, unfortunately, has a lot to learn in usability. On the other hand, Windows is a mess of technical problems. OS X pretty much fills the void.
Personally once MacOS X for 80x86 is out, it will be the first thing to install on my PC, even if it is a pirated one. I already own a top motherboard, CPU and VGA card and I don't intend to throw those components away just because Apple says so. And I don't give a dime about the design of my box (hidden under my desk).
Fucking losers.
Ouch. As a Mac user, I'm deeply hurt. Fucking loser.
Actually they are not restricting with you do with the hardware.
TPM only ensures you can run OSX on validly TPM'ed machines, not restrict you from running other OSes.
Exactly. Does anyone really think that Apple will not continue development of a PPC version of OSX? Of course they will - they need a backup plan just in case Intel does not work out. It's the same situation in reverse.
I don't make predictions, and I never will.
what suddenly gives you the right to decide that you should be allowed to run their OS on any hardware?
do you sue companies that won't allow you to unlock the processing potential of fancy touch screen cash registers, palm pilots that can't run Windows Mobile, or a watch that doesn't allow you to change it's OS? do you sue palm pilot because they refuse to allow you to buy Palm OS and run it on any machine you please? or the cash register manufacterer for not selling you their cash register OS for normal PCs?
no, because it's absurd. why is it absurd? because these companies depend on hardware sales. just like apple. this is not illegal to the slightest bit, and you can't prove it in court for the following reasons:
the fact is that apple doesn't want to license their OS for any hardware but their own. whether it's Intel, IBM, or Motorola, it's no different. Intel does NOT have a monopoly on the market, as Intel does not hold even close to 100% marketshare of the PC microprocessor market.
Apple has broken no law whatsoever in this regard, and the fact is that by restricting what type of hardware customers can use with OS X, apple can do a number of things that are GOOD for the consumer:
1. integrated hardware/software means there are less drivers to deal with, more plug and play is easily achievable
2. more features can be added to the computers without adding 3rd party programs. Things like the sudden motion sensor and the scrolling trackpad can be integrated in the OS. The OS can have custom versions that are optimized for their particular model.
3. tech support doesn't have to deal with thousands of different parts in beige box PCs, which saves the consumer time on the phone with Apple's tech support representatives. in court, apple could argue that this makes their tech support cheaper than the competition (which it is in many cases).
4. Lowering the hardware confusion makes documentation easier, and reduces to a small extent crashes/bugs/problems. Any bugs/crashes/problems can be detected faster when you know exactly what parts are in the computer and how they interact.
5. Also in respect to #4, reduction of these general problems increases the quality of the product. reducing crash/bug/problem downtime makes for a more valuable, satisfying product.
6. i'm guessing security is easier, too. knowing what hardware is in the computer means knowing exactly where and how information can leave and enter the computer.
you do realize that darwin is open source so drivers can be added at will (onto will?).
Check out "Office Live" that Microsoft is pushing now...
;-)
Very basically, you will not be able to buy any software in the future. You will have to dial out and use all your apps online for a monthly subsribtion fee, like your cell phone! Ever heard of VNC?
Think of your future Microsoft computer as some kinda sick uber-terminal that needs to be hooked up to the mainframe at Redmond to run anything (don't need cables, maybe will use 3G or sattelite internet, or whatever). Upside is that you can carry with you all your settings, apps, docs no matter what device you use. And you can figure the downsides for yourself
Hacking that? Well, that would be like hacking cell-phones, or steal other people's credit money... Make no mistake about it: any computer hacking in the future would ab initio involve activities that are highly criminal and illegal. Couple that with mandatory biometrics, and the 'hackers' just can't hide! But hey, at least script-kiddies will be nubbed in the bud!
Let me guess-- you know, because you are one of them?
Intel's Pentium-M chips, on the other hand, are still kicking ass on the low-power side of things and outperforming desktop chips running at much greater MHZ.
:)
Apple is more interested in the P-M and its derivatives than the P4 and its derivatives such as the crappy Xeons currently getting their asses handed to them by Opterons.
OtakuBooty.com: Smart, funny, sexy nerds.
" So who cares? As long as the authentication for these things is local it'll get hacked."
*sigh* Geeks.
First of all. This isn't 1978. The world has changed and people's knowledge has changed. It's no longer as easy as "fiddle with this".
Second Apple can make it irrelevent that you just happened to crack your local copy. Which would be akin to you breaking into your own car. Fun, but irrelevent.
It isn't about costs and benefits--it's about the challenge--and not even nagware is immune if they take an interest in it.
Do you really think Apple can succeed in protecting their software where an entire industry, devoted to doing nothing but software protection, has failed?
NOP the jumps...crack the checksum...it's been done on $10 software and it's been done on $25K software. It will be done with OSX and there is little that Apple can do to prevent it.
I wasn't sure about the schedule, just hoping to see something (PowerBook maybe) by the June dev meeting. If the PowerMacs are that far off I might as well bite the bullet.
The revolution will NOT be televised.
I'm more curious if the proprietary Apple machines will be able to dual boot into XP, or Longhorn, or Linux...
Except that, since most of the world is on Intel or AMD via Windows, Apple doesn't have to worry about losing the desktop market to a Microsoft suddenly gone PPC. You now have the two biggest consumer OSes on the same chip. IBM can make all the fast chips it wants; end users won't care. To your average Joe, it's like being upset that you can't have your very own supercomputer at home when all they really need is web and email.
"Give a man fire, and he'll be warm for a day; set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life
You said "its slower than the 2.2Ghz dual-core Athlon X2 that's sitting next to it" Apple is not moving to AMD they are moving to Intel. Now compare your 2+ Ghz G5 to a Pentium. The G5 may win. I think the move to Intel was done because of notebooks. G4s are not fast enouh and the G5 would requre the user to cary a backpack full of batteries I really wish Apple had gone to AMD. I want an Apple version of this http://www.sun.com/desktop/workstation/w2100z/spec s.jsp
or maybe even this
http://www.sun.com/servers/entry/v40z/specs.jsp
Note that Sun calls an eight-core Opteron box an "entry level" system.
I'd love to see Apple softwar on AMD based Sun hardware. Sun has actualy
gotten it's prices in-line. thier dual Operon box starts at $2,200 not
far from Apple's Dual G5.
(I'm wrtin this on a dual Xeon box made by HP that runs Solaris 10. Interestingly
the motherbord has the TM chip on it although Solaris ignores it. The chip actualy
_measures_ the system and then expresses the result with a crytpographic hash.
Part of that measuremet is the software. It would be darn hard to defeat
yup, and I reckon RISC is the future.
It's got a PCI bus too, but then I'm sure you knew that.
Hey! That's my sig you're smoking there!
Don't see why apple shouldn't let OSX out as a software only installer package for Intel/AMD. Write up a few drivers for the major hardware vendors and let the hackers do their thing. It'll only increase market share.
"Maybe this experiment will eventually prove that TPM itself is impossible to achieve when more people are working to break your system than are employeed by Apple to defend it."
Funny with all that bravo, you all can crack whatever scheme they come up with, but you all can't write completely bug-free code.
Sure, look at the iBook. It will not let you do dual display with extended desktop, only a mirrored desktop. Furthermore, the iBook will not continue to run when the lid is closed if that is what you want it to do. With the level of hardware that is in the iBook there is no way that you can convince me that it is incapable of doing these simple things. The reason they cripple the iBook is to sell the PowerBook. Oh and another thing, the iBook does not have an audio-in port. Check out the comparison chart at http://store.apple.com//Catalog/US/images/portable s_comparison_chart_con.html
No, no dual-display mode is not a deal breaker for me. No lid-closed mode turns me off. But what really gets me is that they are intentionally selling me a crippled machine. If I am going to buy a laptop, I want full access to all of its functionality. That is why I have a Thinkpad.
F*ck, most replies here are totally without any basis or substance. Is /. crowed really that clueless?
Most of you have not even seen OS X x86 working on white box PC's, why the hell are you posting any comments or speculations about it. If you want to look smart, post about things you actually *know*, not some wild guesses that might make you look smart because you toss a few buzz-words.
You can extract the full key sets from running Infineon TPM 1.1 and 1.2 chips (should work for on-die TPMs as well, but I haven't seen any of those hit yet) with a piece of hardware that's already been developed, after which you can emulate the TPM in software; with real keys, it remotely attests just fine. You just haven't heard about it, because the Solution isn't available to the public.
Mac OS X v10.4 Tiger: Developer Overview. "...there is only one version of the kernel for all Apple hardware." (Which must be 32-bit in order to run on older hardware.)
64-Bit Transition Guide. "Because 64-bit applications will be supported using a 32-bit kernel, this 64-bit support will have no impact on most device driver or kernel extension writers."
Pure-software "TPM" is no more theoretically secure than DVD CSS. To make a real TPM you need hardware and firmware support, including hardened tamper-resistant key storage and signature checking. You need TPM support all the way down into the CPU itself, which AFAIK is not yet available in x86 platforms. Once they have that it'll be much harder to crack whatever schemes they use to tie their software to their hardware.
Incorrect that 64-bit apps have to be limited to the command line. Just that the GUI has to run 32-bit code and the backend of the app can run as 64-bit code. Apple claims this is a better way to go as the GUI does not really need to be 64-bit anyway, so it's more efficient.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
These hackers are going to ruin the intel port for everyone. Soon everyone will be complaining at how unreliable OS X is when running on their generic PC box made from spare parts. As soon as that happens all the good OS X press will disappear and Apple will be forced to play on Microsoft's level. The hackers at the osx86 project are just as bad as the warez/serialz distributors at MSJ who pirating everything from professional apps to shareware. Don't these people realize that we developers need to eat too!
Maybe people will end up compiling a list of hardware combinations that work fine, instead of throwing it at any random piece of hardware.
Before:
// boolean Check_TPM_Owner(double chipValue) {};
boolean Check_TPM_Owner(double chipValue) {};
After:
Send me your thanks via PayPal!
Operating system
Camera comperable to the iSight
I know most of the do-it-yourself crowd already has copies of XP lying around (or runs linux), but the cost of the operating system is included in the iMac's cost, so it's not fair to compare prices with a home built system without including the OS.
You can lease the X86 developer's box from Apple, or you can shell out $500 for a Mac mini, and use the no-charge developer tools.
Unless you're a very fast learner, you'll spend a fair amount of time learning Apple's tools, frameworks, etc., that will be virtually identical on the X86 and PPC platforms. That is, identical except for whatever weird bugs are in these initial developer boxes. Unless your time or the potential app isn't worth much, the $500 won't be a major factor in your choice of developing for OSX.
The developer boxes are for people with major products on Apple, who need to ensure that they have dual binary apps on store shelves the day that Apple ships the customer X86 boxes. Somebody who's "interested" in getting into OSX can spare themselves a lot of rough edges.
Once you have a working app on the PPC box, you can shell out for whatever Apple has available on X86 (or borrow some time on one from a developer acquaintance), and port your code. You'll minimize your effort to grok Apple's bleeding-edge stuff, because the developer boxes will be better by the time you are ready to port. If Apple is even halfway telling the truth, you'll just flip the "dual binary" switch and your will be good to go.
You can then sell the mini box for at least a few pennies. Not a very expensive learning experience.
"Inquiring Minds Want to Know!"
It doesn't matter if they are moving to Intel instead of AMD. The OP claimed that PowerPC was efficient. My point was that the current major desktop/workstation implementations (G4 and G5), aren't.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
I'm going to look into my crystal ball and predict which of the features you want make it into the first revision of the Intel iBook:
:-) I was going to pick up a 12" iBook this fall, but then Apple announced the shift to Intel...
2gHz Pentium M:yes
512mb RAM:yes
2 or 4gb maximum RAM: 2GB yes, 4GB, hell no
6600 go w/128mb VRAM: maybe, but in an iBook, you're probably looking at 64MB
60-80GB hard drive:yes
combo drive, upgradable to SuperDrive: yes
WXGA resolution: yes
$1000 pricetag: yes
I'm guessing that the Intel iBooks will mostly fit the bill for what you're looking for, but there is no way that it'll support 4GB of RAM, and I really doubt that the Ibook will sport 128MB of VRAM. Apple needs to differntiate between it's iBook and PowerBook models, and I'm guessing that the extra main and video RAM that you're looking for would be reserved for the PowerBooks. I hope that the iBook is as powerful as you're suggesting, because I have $1000 in my checking account that is waiting for them to hit the street.
I understood him to mean $200 in addition to the price of a vanilla system, not that the system would cost $200.
Wow. I think you've set some kind of record. Every word of your post is complete BS!
i think windows' desktop dominance is actually inversely proportional to it's own piracy
what i mean is, back in windows 95/98 days, when OS piracy was relatively non-existant, they had upwards of 95% of the desktop market. now, when windows xp is pirated like you wouldn't believe, they are QUICKLY losing the desktop market to Linux, and now OS X.
thats not to say apple should work harder to prevent OS X being pirated, it's merely my $0.02
The PII was always a better CPU all-around than the G4. The G4's floating-point performance was never very good, unless you could use AltiVec (which wasn't all the time). The G5 was never a leap over x86. From the beginning, unless you could use AltiVec (and a lot of stuff can't), it was about comparable clock-for-clock to an Opteron. When the 2.0 debuted, Opteron was at 1.8GHz, so the G5 was faster, but it was never a leap. Since then, the G5 hasn't got much faster (the 970MP is 2.5GHz), and neither has the Opteron (the dual-cores are at 2.4GHz).
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
Who wants to run a hacked system, where the maker of the OS is actively hostile to you? Running a cracked OS seems to present no benefits, to me.
If they do what I think is the smart thing, they'll leave copy protection out and protest weakly when pirated versions spread all over the place.
But this is the whole reason I've switched for good from Windows to Linux. I'm tired of my OS being hostile to me!
Lee Latham
That is what I was saying, though I admit I did not make it very clear it was two processes. However it's perfectly legitimate to have an Application composed of one or more processes (or executables if you want to think about it that way), and my main point was that 64-bit Applications did not have to go without a GUI. Since Objective-C is all message passing anyway, talking to the other process is relativley cheap and easy even if it is in another process.
I'm not even sure I dislike the model since so few applications will really ever need to be 64-bit applications.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
-1 Hackers reference. I hate that movie, even with Angelina Jolie in it.
And yet I remembered that quote as soon as I saw it... aw fuck it.
Go hug some trees.
but... but... but... you just have to check that little checkbox! and Mathematica will compile!
Go hug some trees.
Only as long as they don't try to make it mass-market compatible and just continue to develop it only for the Apple x86 platform and silently accept some people are running it on non-Apple hardware.
But, since Apple is still a hardware company that sells the overall experience, it would still be a bad idea, IMHO. And Microsoft has more than one way to put a major barrier into the adoption of OS X/x86 as an alternative to Windows. The most likely and effective way would be to cease the development of Office/X - that would be a big blow for Apple!
Part of the mess that is Windows is that Microsoft basically has to offer support for every crappy video card, mainboard chipset or whatever and because of that, the complexity of the system goes beyond anything manageable.
I firmly believe that a major reason why OS X works so well is that the engineers at Apple can test their software with every piece of hardware Apple ever built. Try that with Windows. If Apple would try to go beyond their own platform, they would face the same problems.
Sven
Why didn't they use Transmeta chips and compile the OS natively for them? That way they get everything they wanted: hardware platform lock-in, x86 compatibility and low power consumption, 2 of which the Intel switch is failing at currently.
omg will there be some sad sad slashdorks when they try to cook up some hax on the TPM stuff. Apparently we're not all aware how extensive and robust the TPM infrastructure is. A trip to Radio Shark and/or a overnight session with a disassembler/binary editor will NOT be sufficient to defeat it.
Premature optimization is the root of all evil
The chips IBM is making for Apple are not the same as teh ones they are puttin in their own machines. Apple is making power consumption a priority. IBM was simply not going to make a G5 chip suitable for a laptop. Intel does. Apple knows that computers are not all about raw performance.
-matthew
"THERE IS NO JUSTICE, THERE IS ONLY ME." -Death
What a bunch of cheapa** whiny motherf**kers. If you want the Mac experience, buy the damn hardware. Otherwise, shut-up and be content in your half-baked Linux and/or patchwork Windows worlds.
Karma Schmarma
The debate still rages in the forums about why Apple would do this when CELL was looking so promising.
And the CELL was designed for the PS3, and for the time being that's all it appears to be targeted towards, not that it matters, IBM also built a faster PPC processor for the Xbox 360. Didn't Apple also want faster, multi-core PPC processors?
I'm not saying that x86 is a blessing, but I don't think you're getting much love from IBM either.
What/who "suddenly" decides that if: I buy Crest Toothpaste - that I have to buy a Butler Tooth brush. That if I buy a Volvo - that I have to buy GoodYear tires. That if I buy Nike runners - I have to buy Nike socks. (nine thousand other examples follow - left out for brevity ;) ). That if I now buy an Intel based PC - that has WindowsMedia Player installed - WMP is the only Media Player allowed (by Microsoft). Hey wait - that's already been decided in the USA Courts and the EU Courts. Both Courts found Microsoft guilty of illegal monopolistic actions. Let see - if I buy a Linux OS, and it won't run on a Intel PC because Intel puts in "X" to stop Linux from loading. Legal? No way! So I buy an Intel PC and when I try to install Mac OS X that I buy - I can't because "X" has been installed by Intel - the"X" stops me from installing the Mac OS I bought. No I don't live in Red China - do you?^) Speaking of a better Apple OS - the boys and girls at Apple could improve the Mac OS - which now runs MySLQ 5 times slower than Linux on a Apple G5!!!! Speaking of better Apple products - why don't the boys and girls at Apple improve their implementation of Quicktime H.264 - which takes twice the time to encode compared to some of their competitors. Remember - this time round - Apple is the producer of the codec - can't blame a third party ;)
At least with Intel chips the whole performance question goes away. I don't think that for general purposes there is going to be a time when PPC has a clear and maintainable lead over Intel, not enough to justify sticking it out. I work on graphics software. I look forward to seeing a number of cross platform graphics apps take a jump forward in performance as optimisations from the Intel side of things also apply to the Mac versions. Don't get me wrong, I like Altivec and all, but I would imagine that most companies have many more people working on Intel optimisations than PPC ones. For our product I've added Altivec optimisations and threaded some parts of the Mac version, whereas the PC version doesn't have anything like this, but when there is only so much time in the day it's hard to justify spending time on new optimisations for a smaller group of users when there is new functionality and such to be added.
As Mac user I'm not really looking forward to the transition, but I think things are in place for it to be as smooth as it can be. Apple are giving developers good information, Rosetta works well for things I have tried it with. Even as a user I would prefer Intel to Cell ( again, if we must make a change ), because at least Intel is an established pretty well known quantity, and we know nothing too drastic is going to happen to them and if they have problems, pretty much everyone else does as well, and not just Apple with Motorola issues or IBM-actually-we-can't-do-3.0GHz problems.
Regards,
Jo Meder
Look at what Microsoft did with Windows: they let Windows be freely pirated, and now they dominate the desktop.
Do you really think that's why MS dominates the desktop? You don't think it's because of all the licensing deals MS had with all the PC makers? And the fact PCs had become a commodity item long ago and were cheaper than Macs, thus Joe Blow would buy the PC based solely on price (thus, getting Windows)? Or maybe that the common (incorrect) perception for a long time was that PCs were for business, Macs for designers...so people kept buying the PCs. Why didn't OS/2 make it? Couldn't that be pirated? Wait...I do recall people loading up Mac OS on machines all around school. I don't think Microsoft dominates the desktop because they let Windows be pirated.
"He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lampposts...for support rather than illumination." - Andrew Lang
>Even if the Intel PowerBooks only had an improved front side bus and otherwise equal performance, it'd blow this roof to Neptune and back.
:-)
Yeah, that's what I was thinking. I also noticed an article on the ATI card (X1000?) that does transcoding in like 20% of the normal time. I'm thinking next year might see some interesting hardware. I've been getting the most out of this poor little PowerBook for like 2 yrs now and I *already* have the Cinema Display... MUHAHAHAHAHA
I'm going to burn down a credit card listening to you guys.
The revolution will NOT be televised.
The G4 was never better than the PII
The G3 (and G4, but by that time the P3 was out) was faster at raw computing tasks than the PII by quite a bit. It was often hard to tell, because the Mac OS of the time was so technically awful. Then the G4 came out but its clock speed stagnated for over a year, while the P3 and P4 moved ahead.
How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
because these companies depend on hardware sales
Companies should not be able to enforce their business model at gunpoint. That's not to say Apple's actions should be illegal, just that "we depend on customers doing X in order to profit" is not a valid argument for forcing people to do X. By this logic, PVRs could be banned because TV stations depend on viewers watching commercials.
How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
The drivers will be written. People are going to want to put non-Apple peripherals in their c86 Macs. (Hell, I currently have a Microsoft-brand wireless-G card in my G3 Yosemete right now, so it isn't something new.) Writing those drivers (the ones the peripheral makers don't provide, at least) is non-trivial, but Darwin is a known quantity and there's lots of people writing drivers for Linux and FreeBSD already.
Alternatively, a version of Mac-on-Linux for x86 hardware would handle driver troubles fairly effectively, and require less work, but still require a crack.
Right about now, some Linux noob is asking him/herself the same question.
What you seem to forget is that all new Macs run on a 64-bit processor, and (somebody PLEASE verify this) are not overclocked. Thus, a 1.9 Ghz PowerPc processor is the equivalent of a 3.8 Ghz Pentium.
Now, When I tried to find a comparable machine to the iMac G5, I nowhere was able to find a 1.9 Ghz 64-bit or a 3.8 Ghz 32-bit processor machine, especially with a built-in video camera, BT, WiFi, and a mouse that scrolls 4-ways standard. It turned out to be a sysyphean ordeal when I kept in mind that this thing has no tower.
"Hello 911? I just tried to toast some bread, and the toaster grew an arm and stabbed me in the face!"
But you seem to forget this is slashdot, so its nothing but cheap bastards that run linux (all 5,000,000,000 variants) wishing they could afford XP, and so sad that Apple hardware/software is out of their grubby reach.
god youre stupid, i suggest you take some law classes to learn about monopolistic practices, and while youre there take some common sense classes too for the benifit of /.
The thing I don't understand is why Apple doesn't just switch the laptops and the Mac Mini to Pentium M, and leave the iMac and PowerMac on the G5. Developers are going to have to compile for both ISAs anyway, so why not just use the best CPU for the job all the time?
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Want top bet they could run on an Opteron or other AMD chip ?
Or that they could continue to crack out PPC based Macs ?
They have options
"at prices below anything I've seen at Fry's, and are telling me that this is equivalent to an iMac."
No, the prices are accurate; instead of shopping at Fry's show at www.newegg.com. Better service and better return policy.
Anyway, that's missing the point. What if you *want* a cheap mac. How do you go about that? The point is that you have a choice with a PC.
I own 4 macs, but I've stopped my knee from jerking when people say they don't like Macs. You can do it too, if you try.
Yeah Apple spends billions of dollars to add in TPM copy protection to OSx86 and it takes about a year to perfect it.
Then some 12 year old kid from Estonia cracks it in about a day from his parent's basement and releases a cracked ISO image on all the P2P file sharing networks. Then all the Non-Apple based PC systems can run the cracked copy, until Apple can add some sort of OS update to reverse the crack, which takes a few months, and then the same 12 year old kid cracks that in a day and releases a new ISO.
Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
The real "older brother" might be NeXT on 68k.
[ReidNews]
what about some sort of an emulated hardware layer or some such?
like some kind of virtualPC style thing.
Even if you just use that layer by flagging the virtual TPM value to check where and when the kernel checks for the TPM, then you've got some kind of pointer as to where and when it happens at least, narrows it down by a couple million lines of asm. I'm not a low-level programmer, so it's just a theory, is that possible?
My Mommy says smoking kills. Oh, is your Mommy a doctor? No. A scientific researcher of some kind? No. Well then sh
one of the nifty features of OS X is that you can clone to a firewire disk that then can be used as the startup disk on (almost) any Mac..... will the current implementation of TPM still allow this? will/does the check see if is any MacTel as opposed to that specific MacTel?
Keeping medicines from the bloodstreams of the sick; food from the bellies of the hungry; books from the hands of the uneducated; technology from the underdeveloped; and putting advocates of freedom in prisons. Intellectual property is to the 21st century what the slave trade was to the 16th.
I'd rather run Linux in a mainstream PC than a warexxored no-support hacked OSX.
You're looking at it from the perspective of someone who's used to packaged operating systems working out of the box. I'm not.
Me, I'd like to tool around in Linux, but I Can't Stand any of the interfaces. CLI blows. Text files blow. KDE and Gnome blow. What I want is the dependability of a Mac, the "beautifully designed, robust Unix with eyecandy." I want copy and paste to work between applications. I want fonts handled beautifully. I don't want to worry about dependencies and apt-gets.
A warez OSX is a free Unix to play around with without all the hassle of Unix-based OS's.
1) What was there to be vocal about? A chip which their favorite OS can't run on comes out that's faster than what's available on their platform. How is that news that matters to them?
2) You obviously haven't been reading up much on the current developments at Intel. This is going to be a big year for them, and both Dells and Macs will be better off because of it.
A Trusted Computing TPM can allow a hardware owner to control what software /runs on it/, but there's still no way a software "owner" can control what hardware /it runs on/.
There are fast low-power PPC architecture chips out there (like PA Semi) that Apple could use if they wanted. It seems silly to jump to as pathetic an architecture as Intel, at *any* stage in the game.
-- *My* journal is more interesting than *yours*...
There are fast low-power PPC architecture chips out there (like PA Semi) that Apple could use if they wanted
Provided they're willing to wait until 2007, when PA Semi starts actually shipping those chips...
No, it fucking isn't time for a class action suit every time someone mildly inconveniences you or fails to blow you just the way you like it.
NO DAMAGES. They are not damaging you. They are not breaking your toys, they are not promising you something other than what they sell, they are not stealing anything from you. You have NO DAMAGES. You are unharmed. They are not legally obliged to make you maximally happy.
If Apple promised that everyone who bought OS X could run it on commodity hardware, then reneged and said "no, wait, our hardware only", you might have a basis for a lawsuit.
I have been involved in a couple of class action lawsuits, such as a lawsuit against Allied Telesyn for sending junk faxes, or a lawsuit I have going with a local mortgage lender where they appear to be on the hook for about $12.5 million in liability. These cases are based on actual damage done to people, not on companies not making me happy enough or running themselves the way I'd like them to.
I would like it if everyone whose first response to a distant rumor that a future product will not be what you want to buy is to declare that it is "time for a class action" would just STFU and stop being such whiners. If you don't like the product, don't buy it. Congratulations, you have managed to avoid being damaged and you have no need to waste your time going to court over the damages you were able to avoid by NOT EVEN DOING A DAMN THING.
My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
1. More CPU's, more SKU's. And that means more difficulties in inventory-management and increased costs
2. You expect Apple and third-party developers to support two binary-incompatible CPU's in the long run? PPC and x86 are very different, supporting both is an added hassle no-one wants to do. They can and will do it during the relatively short transition-peroid, but they would not want to do it for years to come.
3. Reduced economies of scale. Apple likes to re-use their stuff as much as possible. Having both x86 and PPC would diminish that. Also, if they bought 2 million CPU's from Intel or IBM, they could propably get a nice discount. But if they bought 1 million CPU's from Intel, and 1 million CPU's from IBM, those discounts wouldn't be as big.
4. Why should they? Intel has some nice CPU's in the pipeline that can replace G5 just fine. Why exactly should they keep G5 around? So they and their users could "think different"?
Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
I would hope that - given there are PC notebooks available *today* with 256MB of VRAM, combined with OS X's VRAM-greediness - that by the time x86 i/PowerBooks are released (and it's likely to be Q4 2006) that we'll be looking at 128MB in the iBook and 256 or even 512 in the PB. (Ironically, however, despite having the only OS that actually makes use of modern GPU features they have had a tendency to use pretty low-powered video configurations (eg: putting a video card in the Mini that couldn't handle CoreImage was just a great, big, juicy "fuck you, cheapskate" to everyone who bought one - Steve must have loved it.)
OTOH, Apple have a long and glorious history of arbitrarily and frustratingly limiting their hardware - particularly at the consumer level - to "encourage" people to buy more expensive products, so I wouldn't be at all surprised to see a measly 64MB in the x86 iBook.
"No", I said, as I pulled on my fresh black turtleneck for the evening. "No way. I am in the business of offering a controlled experience, every aspect of it is controlled, right down to the grain of the wood in the tables you are sitting at, and you can only drink my wine in my restaurant."
"Well that's jolly good for you", said my customers, "but in that case I will buy my wine elsewhere. And it may not be quite as good now, but it will get better as the other vineyards learn from you. Because you see, I am not going to stop drinking my wine with my own cooking at home. Its really important to me, and you cannot stop me from doing it" .
"The only thing you can do, is stop me drinking YOUR wine with my cooking. Think about it."
And that is how I lost the chance to become one of the leading winemakers of the world. But I am still running quite a good local restaurant, with a vineyard attached.
Apple wasn't going to have completed the Intel transition till 2007 anyway, so it's not like the timing is a huge problem. The dual-core PA Semi chip is supposed to be out first, 3Q06; I'm sure Apple could have worked up a design from preliminary specs by then. Think of how many new features they could have added to MacOSX in the meantime if they didn't have a bunch of their development staff bogged down porting to Intel and writing all that futile anti-hack stuff.
On a slight tangent... When I was in engineering college, part of what they tried to instill was a code of ethics. To be a good engineer meant more than just knowing the formulas and applying them, but applying them to positive causes. Basically, to remember that being an engineer is about creating solutions to improve the world.
If I were an engineer at Sony or Microsoft or Apple, I would have quit my job long ago and gone to a competitor or started a new company. I just can't imagine an eager young engineer being handed an assignment "ok, your job is to cripple the product so that 90% of its usefulness is inaccessible" and taking that. How can they sleep at night, how can they face themselves in the mirror? I've never been too fond of Apple designs, but I've always admired the fact that they had a philosphy, an ideal, and principles that they stuck to. Where has that principle gone? There's plenty of people responding here that Apple hasn't ever been about the fastest chips or the greatest bang for the buck, but about an esthetic. If that were still the case, then nobody (Apple or their customers) should be fussing over the current Powerbooks, they should be living up the Intel-free Apple lifestyle, and more Power to them.
When Sony Electronics had to bow down to Sony Pictures/Music/Entertainment, that Electronics division died. When Microsoft engineers were tasked to keep adding new features to Windows without paying attention to building a bulletproof core OS, the same. With Apple no longer having any Different Hardware, "Think Different" is essentially dead. When you give up your innovation and integrity, whatever else you may have follows it out the door...
-- *My* journal is more interesting than *yours*...
http://www.macsimumnews.com/index.php/archive/appl e_files_patent_system_and_method_for_creating_tamp er_resistant_code/
Have a look at this it covers the securing of the Mac OS to Hardware.
http://www.albanwr.com
Apple wasn't going to have completed the Intel transition till 2007 anyway, so it's not like the timing is a huge problem. The dual-core PA Semi chip is supposed to be out first, 3Q06;
Yeah, assuming absolutely no delays, and part of that plan is to scale down to a new 65 nm process, and new processes are always fraught with delays. It's like a freaking law of nature.
The PowerPC road is littered with the bloated corpses of aggressive young companies that were going to come in and shoot the moon with fantastic new advances; history is not on PA Semi's side. Freescale's got a magic new G4 that was due months and months ago. Remember Exponential Technologies and their revolutionary x704? Neither does anyone else, but in 1996 the tech world was enchanted with its promises of a new PowerPC (shipping in 12 months!) that was going to run circles around everything else. Good thing Apple didn't bet on their success.
And what's Apple supposed to do? Sit around with the portable lineup stagnant for another 18 months because of the vapourware promises of a startup with no experience delivering to a company as big as Apple? That sounds like a winning business plan to you? Betting the farm on a fringe player's completely unsubstantiated promises is suicide.
No, Apple's making the smart move: putting themselves where all the competition is. Now they don't have to worry about keeping up with the Joneses because they are the Joneses. Apple will finally have two suppliers driving each other in the same market space, which is a luxury they haven't had since the early days of the PowerPC. Hell, all reports are that the current x86 Mac dev boxes already kick the living shit out of the G5 lineup, speedwise.
Which is a good reason for people not to buy Intel-based Macs right away, but has nothing at all to do with whether you should run it on non-Apple hardware or not.
Major companies will very quickly make available OS X drivers for their hardware to be sure. I hate Realtek as much as anybody, but dammed if their RTL8139 cards don't come with drivers for every platform you can imagine...
Open source drivers may help fill the driver vaccume as well.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
you have to be kidding right? you apparently don't know anything about RISC chips like the PPC's. a 1.8ghz PPC will outperform a 3ghz intel machine by a large margine. the PPC can perform many more times the number of operations per clock cycle. the processors apple uses have always been faster than intel's.
you have to be kidding right? you apparently don't know anything about modern CISC chips like i686's and athlons, that are more like modern RISC chips under the hood.
The CISC instructions get broken down into risc-instruction-like "micro-ops" which are then sent to multiple execution cores. In general, modern Intel/AMD processors can execute more RISC-like micro-ops per clock cycle than PPC's. Most of the PPC's on-again off-again performance advantage comes from the fact that it has way more registers to work with than x86, so you don't need as many load-and-store operations. The increased number of registers on AMD64 is one of the reasons it destroys P4 so handily.
How many Apple shares do you own?
Having played with the one just down the hall, I'd suggest that you're right about the Intel boxes being superiod to the PPC OS X boxes I've run previously.
:) And yeah, I intentionally checked the "anonymous" box.
BTW, Tiger installed just fine on my generic x86 hardware.
The problem with GTK is the user needs to install it to use the program, while wxWidgets doesn't require the users to install anything extra.
--
Get your Free MacMini's here
Just install the Aqua KDE theme ;-)
Bullshit. Just having an Intel-based motherboard will already cover almost everything. And unless Apple continues to use a custom video BIOS, video will be a non-issue.
1. More CPU's, more SKU's. And that means more difficulties in inventory-management and increased costs
Their laptops and the mini already use different CPUs than the iMac and the towers. (G4s instead of G5s, along with
the different motherboards and support chips.)
So switching the current G4 machines to Intel wouldn't be much of a problem in this respect. It'd be different
if they sold all their machines in PPC and Intel versions.
2. You expect Apple and third-party developers to support two binary-incompatible CPU's in the long run? PPC and x86 are very different, supporting both is an added hassle no-one wants to do. They can and will do it during the relatively short transition-peroid, but they would not want to do it for years to come.
NeXT, with far tinier resources than Apple has, used to support their OS on four binary incompatible CPUs, without control
over the hardware. I don't think it would be a big stretch to just support x86 and PPC machines.
As it is, we know Apple is going to be selling a mix of x86 and PPC machines for 18 months or so, and releasing one major OS upgrade
during this dual-architecture period.
September 2011: Looking for Cocoa/iOS work in Boston area Cocoa Programmer Quincy, MA
This is yet another switch that breaks binary compatibility. The first m68k-to-ppc was briliant, the pef-to-mach was not so briliant and the ppc-to-x86 is going to suck.
Thank you for coming back from three years in the future and letting us all know how the transition went. We were all wondering about that. Frankly, it's surprising news, because from our perspective it looks likely to be one of the most smooth archetechture migrations in the history of computing.
If only there was something Apple could do now to avoid the fate you witnessed first-hand when you were living in 2008. Perhaps if they made it possible for developers to ship dual-binary versions of their product with little more hassle than checking a box in Apple's compiler program or something...
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
Reading comments here, anyone can see that 95% of posters not even once clicked on the only link in 3-line article!
Two things:
1. Click on TFL and take a look at that cite. Theres answers for yours stupid assumptions.
2. Protecting software aimed not at uncrackability but on GETTING TIME UNTIL NEXT VERSION.
Example: Mac OS X Intel 10.4.2 WAS NOT cracked until 10.4.3, and thus - it will never be cracked. Got it?
> we're nowhere near the point where enough people will accept their programs phoning home in order to run them.
a tion and iTrustedComputing.
You're right. Everyone will surely switch to Linux once Microsoft and Apple start forcing that. Just like the droves who switched when Windows Activation was introduced. Just like the torrential flow of enterprise and home users that switch every day due to the myriad gaping security holes in Windows.
</sarcasm>
People are lazy. Not just regular lazy, but LAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAZY. And even more so, they're AFRAAAAAAAID of CHAAAAANGE. They ask, "What do I have to do in order to keep doing things exactly the way I've been doing them since 1995?" and even if the answer involves bodily harm, they'll do it. Even if it's harder than just friggin' learning a new way to do things.
If 50 zillion college students put up with the pile of dung that is MySpace, 100 zillion consumers and pointy-haired-bosses will put up with WinGenuineAdvantageHourlyPhoneHomeProductKeyValid
Count on it.
I agree with your comment, but want to point out that in spite of the rest, his estimate for DVD burner was actually high. The Best Place in the World to buy components, NewEgg, has a nice NEC drive for $42.99 + $4 shipping.
The stats on it:
Cache: 2M
CD-R: 48X
CD-ROM Access Time: 140ms
CD-RW: 32X
DVD+R: 16X
DVD+R DL: 8X
DVD+RW: 8X
DVD-R: 16X
DVD-ROM Access Time: 160ms
DVD-RW: 6X
Model #: ND-3550A BK OEM
Newegg also has 160GB SATA drives for about $ 75. I don't work for them or anything, but I am a happy customer.
Quick boys! Mod this guy down before anyone finds out the truth!
-Steeviant Jobs
Last I heard, zero.
What, I have to own Apple shares to be sick of whiners who want a "class action lawsuit" every time the world fails to present itself to them on a silver platter?
If you want to assail my position, how about instead of the ad hominem circumnstantial, you go with some description of the actual damage done to people by Apple in this case. Show me the computer that used to work that Apple broke, for instance.
My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
Yes they do, but not by choice. You can be certain that Apple would just LOVE to use the same CPU across their product-line. But they have no choice on the matter right now. But with Intel they COULD use the same CPU for all their products. So why exactly would they deliberately choose to use different CPU's, when they had a CPU that would fit nicely to their entire product-line? They have to use G4 and G5 right now, because G4 can do things G5 cannot (run cool enough for SFF-machines (Mini) and laptops). But when Apple gets Pentium-M derived x86-CPU's, they have a CPU they could use in SFF-machines, Laptops and hi-end machines. So why should they use PPC as well? What benefit would PPC (I assume we are talking about G5 here) offer? The performance would be more or less the same, but that does not justify supporting two incompatible architectures. If G5 mopped the floor with x86, then it might be justifiable. But it doesn't. It's competetive for sure, but it's not superior (well, it is if you compare it to P4 and/or Xeon, but Apple will not use P4's and Xeons, so it doesn't matter).
Of course it CAN be done (just look at Linux or *BSD). But why should it be done? It is an extra hassle and it makes things more complicated than they need to be. If supporting two architectures is so easy, why does Apple need transition-perdiod from PPC to x86? If it's that easy, it should take 1-2 months at most.
And of course Apple has more resources than you can shake a stick at. But what about third-party developers? Why should Apple make their lives harder than they already are, for no benefit at all? Seriously?
That 18 months is also known as "relatively short transition-period".
I have yet to hear any valid argument supporting the idea that Apple should offer both PPC and x86. You provided some arguments that it could be doable, but you failed to provide any arguments as to WHY they should do it.
Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
If MS stopped Office for OS X it would be anticompetitive and they'd be open to a huge lawsuit from Apple.
First of all - stop sounding like an Apple Lemming Devotee Apologist - and attack anyone who questions what Apple does to consumers. In my opinion, Apple does not operate in the best interests of consumers - at least we can agree on that - yes/no? You want a specific example how Apple's monopolistic agenda is damaging my ability to do what I want to do? Well here's one. I have invest about 15 years in trying to use Apple products effectively and about $20,000 in Apple hardware. My focus - Tv on the web. Apple has a history of producing hardware that has been anywhere from 25 to 35 percent slower than similar priced Dell/ Intel boxes (check http://www.digitalpostproduction.com/ ). So Apple will be producing "special Intel boxes" to run the next Mac Os x. Unfortunately the best dual core Intel box is anywhere from 30% to 50% slower than a dual core AMD when encoding H.264. From Znet UK: "AMD currently offers the most attractive dual core option. The entry level Athlon 64 X2 3800+ may cost $87 more than its Intel counterpart, the Pentium D 820, but the AMD chip is a much better performer. It also uses considerably less power. A typical Athlon 64 X2 3800+ system uses less than 100W, while an equivalent Intel-based system uses about 50 per cent more, so it will be easier to build a quiet office PC around an AMD dual core chip. The lower electricity cost could also be a significant factor in enterprises with several thousand PCs." As well check out (http://reviews.zdnet.co.uk/hardware/processorsmem ory/0,39024015,39233885-5,00.htm ) to see that a $900 Intel CPU chip is 50% to 80% slower than dual Athalon 4800+ when encoding H.264!!!!! That means I can be twice as productive on and AMD than on an Intel's high end CPU chip!!! Simply Eh! (as we say in Canada). Will I be able to install the next Mac OSX I buy on a AMD!? Who are the idiots who consider this issue flame bate - what jerk-offs.
Actually, that's how they're starting. The first things to have intel chips will actually be low end machines and portables. The G5 tower rocks and will continue to rock for a while, and it be on sale for another year or so.
Help I'm a rock.
...I have yet to hear any valid argument supporting the idea that Apple should offer both PPC and x86. You provided some arguments that it could be doable, but you failed to provide any arguments as to WHY they should do it....
a) Apple is one of the few companies with knowledge on the PPC platform, this will be gone (or at least not used anymore, i.e. Shelved), this is sad at least.
b) I don't know the long run, but i like to see some arguments on CISC vs RISC roadmaps. What will the future in say 8 to 12 years bring about. I always liked RISC for the idea of higher instructions/progr. languages in software, who knows what kind of genius develops a new kind of instruction handling, does CISC cage you here?. (this is philosophical/hypothetical)
c) Along the 8 to 12 year roadmap, how is the hardware future looking: Ghz in CISC vs RISC. Anyone say OCTA-core...
d) another (not so good) argument is the competitor one. Not as to INTEL monopoly on processor market (specific) but (also) as in a stiff competition. Me thinks that also leads to inovation, to keep ahead of the other party. So a healthy PPC group would be wise for al of us (another question being if apple should be the workhorse here)...
Your post doesn't even make sense.
If you don't like the products, I suggest that you buy something else. There is still no need to sue Apple for not serving your personal needs. If you want them to be beholden to you, buy a majority of their stock and start issuing orders.
My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
Does make any sense?! Only if you are an Apple Apologist. Again you asked me how Apple/Jobs is damaging me. So I switch over to FreeBSD OS (which Apple OS X is) or Windows XP (like 75% of multimedia content producers for the web) - will Apple refund me the $6000 for the Apple OS software I own? By the way, in Canada it is fraudulent to advertise a product - that in reality - does not do what a manufacturer says it does (G5 faster than Intel box).
I beg to differ.
'A lie if repeated often enough, becomes the truth.' - Goebbels
I wonder if the up-to-date version of Mac OS X Intel is a bit quicker and more responsive than the previous one?
(cough)