In Short: 10.4.4 and Dharma. Oh, and Woz speaks.

if they lunch a super cheap ibook without firewire, so i can run just MS Office (or better iWorks, iWish they will include Cells), browse on the internet and download my fotos from my camera, sure i will buy one...

I have the feeling that "Numbers" will be incorporated into the iWork package they unveil at MacWorld. This year's MacWorld should be a lot of fun...

That's a good point, Macgirl, I hadn't realized that about the build numbers.

 

Ditto on that, you go girl!

 

if they lunch a super cheap ibook without firewire, so i can run just MS Office (or better iWorks, iWish they will include Cells), browse on the internet and download my fotos from my camera, sure i will buy one...

 

Does anybody else think that Apple will introduce an x86 PowerBook before an x86 iBook?

 

Here is my logic, that last PowerBook update, although very recent, was a non-update as far as the chip went (people were expecting the Motorola 7448 and didn't get it). While I am convinced that the Mini and iMac will go x86 before the PowerMac, I suspect that an x86 iBook would just totally kill off PowerBook sales.

 

However, my analysis is limited and too the extent that I have really failed to consider the Dothan versus Merom issue (or WHATEVER, I still hate these damm meaningless Intel codes names, uh, why not use numbers you tools!), flawed.

 

Bueller? Bueller? Anybody?

 

 

 

WOW? Does this board automatically consolidate mulitple posts by the same user? That's what it looked like happened here. Too cool.

Edited December 14, 2005 by bofors

Of Course, buld with two numbers at end are PPC, with four numbers are X86 or Unibin.

 

10.4.3 8F46 is PPC

10.4.3 8F1111 is X86

 

10.4.4 8G17 is PPC, but only for developers.

 

So...10.4.3 forked off of 8F10, and is build 99 of that fork?

 

Gah, and here i was thinking apple had to make over a thousand builds to release a quality intel version...

When Tiger 10.4.1 was released on PPC it was build 8B25 and in X86 was 8B1025, why they are not the same after I don't know.

When Tiger 10.4.1 was released on PPC it was build 8B25 and in X86 was 8B1025, why they are not the same after I don't know.

 

This begs a related question.

 

Will Apple even unify x86 and PPC builds with the initial public x86 release? Clearly they need not to.

............................................

Takuro,

 

I think your idea about Tiger x86 being "back-up" only is brilliant and quite obviously right. The same goes for your thoughts about the "grand" unification of x86 and PPC being with Leopard. Glad to see someone really thinking around here.

 

Now, can somebody explain to me how an x86 iBook will not cannibalize PPC PowerBook sales? I mean, either the people buying PowerBooks are really that stupid, they are running "pro"/AltiVec enabled applications that have yet to be ported to x86 or Apple is just going to take the hit.

 

~bofors

 

PS: It is not "gecko", but "get-go" that you mean (lol).

 

EDIT: >>>Insert "Geico" joke here<<<

Edited December 18, 2005 by bofors

Apple may not be able to ship everything as Intel-only at this point. Recall that 8B1025 had a PPC ATSServer. I've noticed while mucking around with Darwin that a lot of it still builds universal code. And besides, things like iLife can't be universal in time for launch, so I project that the restore DVDs shipping next month will be as much Intel as possible, but with tricks to make it non-usable on existing Macs - thin the kernel, remove the ppc boot files, etc...just enough to lock it in to Intel machines but not so much they have to rush everything to be ported.

............................................

... it's beneficial not to release a uni-bin standalone Tiger DVD. It's just one more item that Apple Stores will have to worry about when switching their stock to new uni-bin discs. It'll save money and make a smoother transition to Intel, in the long run. People with PPC Macs won't need a uni-bin disc anyway, and those with Intel Macs will already have backup discs.

 

Of course, this is why your original conjecture was clearly correct.

 

However, and not that it really has any bearing here, I certainly would expect that the "back-up" disks to have PPC binaries and otherwise be the same unified types of OS X installation disks that Apple is distributing to developers now. I mean, there simple is no reason to strip the PPC parts out. The only difference is the "back-up" nature of it, it will check for hardware "compatibility" or whatever to ensure it only works on the designated Apple hardware.

Edited December 18, 2005 by bofors

I think they will eventually put both 'builds' on one disk. the majority of the files can go both ways but only a few are processor architecture specific. PPC machines will need things (like TVector for flash), or they will be slow; while intel can not use those. IMHO PPC should be phased out ASAP, thats why I believe Apple will introduce intel macs in Jan. Universals create problems, change is good. ...Get the ball rolling.

Slightly off-topic, but the name "J Locke" is associated with urban legend in more ways than one. In my native England there's a small but relatively well-known town with a statue of one J Locke (a railway engineer) and there has always been a legend that a particularly rare gold coin is located under the statue's foot. After countless attempts at sabotage over the years the local authorities publicly declared that the rumour was nonsense and would people please stop trying to prise the unfortunate gentleman's foot off the plinth...

 

I can't help associating the name with a joke.

Slightly off-topic,

I'm sorry... did I miss something? About Firewire, I mean?

 

I've been running FW on my OSX-86 box since initial install. No boot-support, but my FW card works just fine in 10.3.1, and I'm assuming it will continue to do so.

 

If not, let me know now! I still need to get an old Address Book off my now-dead B&W's HDD!

firewire will never die, but Apple may want to choose usb2.0 over firewire because it has become the cross-platform standard. Apple will not drop support for it, especially since current macs offer it and they wil continue to support firewire even if it is discontinued 4 years from now.

 

for we 'pc builders' firewire cards run $20-30. so any future mac that doesnt have firewire can be supplemented with a pci card.

 

EDIT: sry for the bad grammar,

Edited December 20, 2005 by johnniecarcinogen

Yes, OSx86 on literally "unsupported" hardware could save FireWire for years. But I still think it is in big trouble.

 

Apple has dropped FireWire 400 (IEEE 1394) in favor of USB 2.0 for iPods. Furthermore, Apple has not wholeheartly embrace FireWire 800 either, and because they are NOT physically compatible (like USB 1.0 - 2.0 are), it does not look like a FireWire future to me.

 

Really, I want the next FireWire. This is what we expect from Apple, serious leadership. If not FireWire 800, then what? Again, I am thinking something like external SATA may be on the horizon:

 

http://www.g-technology.com/Products/G-SATA.cfm

Edited December 20, 2005 by bofors

Yeah, it definitely doesn't say what architecture. But if they are doing ibook or mini to start, that possibly just means they'll have integrated GMA950 or so, which also means no new x86 drivers in that release. No incentive for that to happen until the PowerMac debut.

that will rather be a negative point... the GMA950 is not as "good" as the Radeon 9550 which powers the current iBook. In the Pc world, Intel-GPU based notebook are synonyms of entry-level (cheap and dirty?) notebooks. I hope that if apple will be introducing a new iBook as it seems to be the case as the iBook12" is EOL (see on hardmac.com); it will not be based on a rather slow GMA950 GPU.

Knowing that many mac users were already complaining about the low amount of VRAM powering hte Radeon 9550 (32MB), I do not believe that Apple will come with a Intel GPU using a shared-memory system.

I might be wrong of course, but for sure this point will be carefully look at by the mac community.

 

 

firewire will never die, but Apple may want to choose usb2.0 over firewire because it has become the cross-platform standard. Apple will not drop support for it, especially since current macs offer it and they wil continue to support firewire even if it is discontinued 4 years from now.

 

for we 'pc builders' firewire cards run $20-30. so any future mac that doesnt have firewire can be supplemented with a pci card.

 

EDIT: sry for the bad grammar, :censored2:

Well, actually looking at most Pc models (desktop and notebooks), msot of them feature a FW400 port; including Intel-motherboard based models. So I do not think that Appel will drop FireWire400 since it is adopted by all. Now comes the question regarding FW800. One month before the famous WWDC 2005 announcement, Intel has announced that they want to add FW800 support in their next generation motherboards and chipset (in other words, NAPA and Co). So was it a hint to the future Intel transition made official a month later by Steve Jobs, or really a support by Intel for the FW800?

 

Yes, OSx86 on literally "unsupported" hardware could save FireWire for years. But I still think it is in big trouble.

 

Apple has dropped FireWire 400 (IEEE 1394) in favor of USB 2.0 for iPods. Furthermore, Apple has not wholeheartly embrace FireWire 800 either, and because they are NOT physically compatible (like USB 1.0 - 2.0 are), it does not look like a FireWire future to me.

 

Really, I want the next FireWire. This is what we expect from Apple, serious leadership. If not FireWire 800, then what? Again, I am thinking something like external SATA may be on the horizon:

 

http://www.g-technology.com/Products/G-SATA.cfm

Apple has dropped FW400 in its iPod, simply due to both retro-compatibility with older PCs not all featuring FW ports, but also due to cost. a USB2 controller cost much less than a FW400 controller.

I am currently using a FW800 external HD for backing up my data from my PB; and it clearly rocks.

but the FW800 has a strong competitot to come : the eSATA.

all HD controllers are going to be SATAI or SATAII so it will also become quite tempting for chipset and motherboard manufacturer (such as Intel) to developp a controller aound SATA format(internal and external SATA).

So I think in the future the MacIntel could come with FW400 + eSATA instead of FW800, or both of them during a transition phase.

In the Pc world, Intel-GPU based notebook are synonyms of entry-level (cheap and dirty?) notebooks.

That's rubbish, it simply isn't true. :censored2: In the professional class of "super-expensive" lightweight, small and ultra-small notebooks (entry-level models beginning at about 1.700 US-Dollars, usual configurations somewhere around 2.000 US-Dollars and up) -- provided that they use an Intel processor and for example not a Transmeta Crusoe like the OQO -- you won't find anything else than Intel integrated graphics. Just have a look at the top-business-class lines of notebooks of all major manufacturers.

That's rubbish, it simply isn't true. In the professional class of "super-expensive" lightweight, small and ultra-small notebooks (entry-level models beginning at about 1.700 US-Dollars, usual configurations somewhere around 2.000 US-Dollars and up) -- provided that they use an Intel processor and for example not a Transmeta Crusoe like the OQO -- you won't find anything else than Intel integrated graphics. Just have a look at the top-business-class lines of notebooks of all major manufacturers.

you give teh example that is the exception of the rule. :censored2:

the ultra portable needs to save on battery lifespan, so as a consequence the GPU must be draining as little as possible power... that's why you get such GPU...

a top business class notebook does need to be a graphic killer machine; it is a specific market different than consumer notebooks.

regarding consumer notebook, one of the strongest marketing point is the GPU...and frankly I have never seen a reference to an Intel GPU with shared memory as being a good marketing feature.

Where can we except Intel's GPUs to be relative to NVidia and ATI in five years? Can we talk "piplelines" here or what?

 

What is Intel's strategy for games? (Clearly, IBM is executing one that was planned years ago).

Where can we except Intel's GPUs to be relative to NVidia and ATI in five years? Can we talk "piplelines" here or what?

 

What is Intel's strategy for games? (Clearly, IBM is executing one that was planned years ago).

 

talk about pipeline ? huh the gma is just a pos 2d card it's not comparable to the crappiest nvidia or ati card, it's totally worthless for any 3d task

talk about pipeline ? huh the gma is just a pos 2d card it's not comparable to the crappiest nvidia or ati card, it's totally worthless for any 3d task

 

My question is this:

 

Is Intel planing on producing GPUs that compete with NVidia and ATI? Yes or no? If no, why not?

 

I mean, Intel would be stupid not to fully commit to the GPU business now because it very clear that the CPU business is in decline. Apple would be a great marketing strategy for Intel to promote it's GPUs and could guarantee demand. This could be another part of the deal between Apple and Intel and I think it might be.

Edited December 21, 2005 by bofors

My question is this:

 

Is Intel planing on producing GPUs that compete with NVidia and ATI? Yes or no? If no, why not?

 

I mean, Intel would be stupid not to fully commit to the GPU business now because it very clear that the CPU business is in decline. Apple would be a great marketing strategy for Intel to promote it's GPUs and could guarantee demand. This could be another part of the deal between Apple and Intel and I think it might be.

 

no intel has no interest in competing in the highend/middleend gfx market

 

http://www.tomshardware.com/2005/09/15/are_intel/page4.html

no intel has no interest in competing in the highend/middleend gfx market

 

http://www.tomshardware.com/2005/09/15/are_intel/page4.html

 

That's hardly enough to convince me and does not even begin to answer the question of "why not", let alone consider Intel future GPU strategy in the context of OSx86 and Apple.

 

Then of course, we should consider this:

 

"... Mark Rein, vice president for Epic Games, the developer of the Unreal graphics engine and game series. 'Before our release of Unreal 2007, we hope that Intel becomes competitive,' Rein said."

 

Sounds like somebody else thinks that Intel is going to be getting serious about GPUs, too.

Edited December 22, 2005 by bofors