Quake3World

i've never seen a video with Steve Jobs actually. After seeing that monkey Steve Ballmer jumping up and down at a MS conference I was traumatized for life.

They had to go and announce another OS, right after releasing Tiger. Now there's nothing special about owning Tiger, and Leopard is the new thing to "have"....bah!!! Marketing, I hate (love) it!

anantech has a coverstory with photos:

http://www.anandtech.com/tradeshows/showdoc.aspx?i=2438

lol, AT points out that AMD performs much better per watt on the 2nd page. Too bad, Jobs.

I'm sure they'll start with Intel, but will have some AMD option in the future. AMD has some pretty good 64-bit solutions, and Apple wont be able to ignore them for too long...

I'm not too sure about that. They probably signed a contract last year that they're exclusively tight together for the coming....10 years or something.

Does this mean Macs will be marred by that god aweful "Intel-Inside" sticker?

saturn wrote:lol, AT points out that AMD performs much better per watt on the 2nd page. Too bad, Jobs.

That's true if you're looking at the Pentium 4...which we're pretty sure they wont use. The Pentium M offers incredible power per watt, and with future multi-core processors using that core, it should be a great chip.

I'm just glad I haven't bought a Mac in the last year, and don't intend to for a long time.

Canis wrote:I'm sure they'll start with Intel, but will have some AMD option in the future. AMD has some pretty good 64-bit solutions, and Apple wont be able to ignore them for too long...

I disagree.
In addition to my point above, I have to question if the processor(s) will be an identical part to any "PC" processor. If it's not, then there's no reason that AMD could even produce a usable chip. And if they did, you'd need another line of motherboards and who knows what else.

Also, AMD could have the same trouble as IBM with producing large amounts of chips. Apple doesn't want to get shafted again by manufacturing problems. With Intel, they'll never have to worry about that. Intel could produce a hundred times more processors than Apple could ever sell.. (maybe an exageration, but you get my point)

One last thing:
OS X already runs on x86 hardware, and has since 10.0. Now that's interesting. I guess the rumors of an x86 build all these years were true. How about that...

It explains why they kept Darwin up to date for x86 the entire time.

a little solvent will take care of the Intel inside sticker.

These new Mactel boxes will allow you to install and run Windows too, if you're so inclined.

I am, since that means a Triple boot of Longhorn, Linux, and OS X. Although, with OS X in its current state, and another update coming before longhorn, it may end up being a dual boot.

bag0shite wrote:These new Mactel boxes will allow you to install and run Windows too, if you're so inclined.

I'm actually looking forward to that. I would very much like to have the best of both worlds running at full processing speed in one computer.

4g3nt_Smith wrote:I am, since that means a Triple boot of Longhorn, Linux, and OS X. Although, with OS X in its current state, and another update coming before longhorn, it may end up being a dual boot.

I gotta say m$ are gonna have to pull something real spectacular out of the hat with Longhorn. Pressure's on. Which is all good for us.

Intel-OS X will only run on propietary Mac hardware, otherwise it could be a big threat to MS Longhorn by 2006/2007.

Imagine Apple gaining lead over Microsoft in an OS war....woaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

saturn wrote:Intel-OS X will only run on propietary Mac hardware, otherwise it could be a big threat to MS Longhorn by 2006/2007.

Imagine Apple gaining lead over Microsoft in an OS war....woaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

At the beginning, yes....licensing will be the next big step, to absolutely cream windows. Just imagine the windows emulation capabilities Apple could implement. With WINE as a solid windows emulation base in unix, they could get practically every bit of software running in the Mac OS, with SDKs for smooth transitions to native mac applications. Then it would be an all out, fair war over who has the more appealing and usable product instead of who has the most software and other third-party infrastructure behind it. I'm guessing this wouldnt happen for another 5-10 years though. Apple still has to build the base and the credibility for such a leap.

The first set of benchmarks comparing OSX on *86 to whatever version of Windows is available at the time, oops, I mean XP, will be very interesting :icon31:

Other than that I think m$ are too far ahead for Apple to go head to head with them. Apple need to come up with another killer device, but something better than the iPod which every household will need (think set-top TV box with broadband TV delivery and wireless music streaming) before m$, running whatever Pentium M derivative (and Pentium M is the jewel in the Intel crown since in a cruel twist of fate Intel are having to use AMDs *86-64 extensions) which I'm certain Apple are capable of doing.

I hate people who violently resist change so I will try not to be one of them, but I will be critical of Apple's transition.

It seems like good news to me except I would prefer AMD to Intel, but the dual boot option is great for gamers that like to use macs. Getting cheaper vid cards, too. No more gouging mac users for the same cards that windows people use for half the price.

No more Mac version of Lotus Notes needed! Can't be all bad.

I expect we'll have our development box in a couple of weeks, if all goes to plan.

Problem is that you won't be able to run it, as far as I know. It requires specific hardware due to a lack of drivers and so on.