2CPU.com » News » June 2005 » First Look: Intel-based Apple

Think Secret has posted a sneak peek at

01/17/2005 03:20 PM: iPod Shuffle - First Look by duke
Since the iPod Shuffle seems to be a hot topic right now, I thought it would be a good idea to post a link to a review of the damn thing. Put into perspective, it...

09/06/2003 04:19 AM: First Look at XP/AMD64 by HEMI
GamePC has a nice review of a pre-beta release of Microsoft Windows XP for AMD's line of 64-bit CPUs. The article includes info on what's included, how 32-bit support stacks up, current driver support...

06/06/2003 04:38 AM: First Look at Four-way Opteron by HEMI
The folks over at AMDMB have their hands on a four-way AMD Opteron and show us some numbers.With the on-board memory controller for each of the four processors, we are able to see the theoretical maxi...

07/06/2000 07:51 AM: WinMe First Look by Granite
Well, I've been playing with WinMe for less than 24 hours, and I like it. It whomps Win98SE. Look for a review within a week or so. But here's what everyone cares about:Q3 Timedemo 1High quality, 1...

06/19/2000 10:12 PM: Indrema Console, first look... by J0rdan
Off and on I've posted information on the proposed Linux-based console soon (we hope) to be hitting the market, the Indrema L600. It should have a processor clocked somewhere in the 600MHz range and h...

LP_Dayblade Experienced SMP'er Posts: 334 Joined: 2001-09-27

#36948 Posted on: 06/24/2005 12:16 AM Anybody have a theory on guess on what performance is going to be like on the x86 hardware instead? Nice to see if all goes well - Intel hardware on the Mac is coming. Could this also facilitate a push for Mac clones? Dayblade Dayblade Rig #1: Platinum: Windows 7 Pro 64-bit, AMD X2-5200 8GB DDR2, 3 TB, 1GB ATI HD 3870x2 Rig #2: Azure: Windows XP 32-bit, AMD Phenom X3 440, 4GB DDR2, 1TB, 2GB ATI HD 4850x2

Gand Noob Posts: 450 Joined: 2003-03-30

#36949 Posted on: 06/24/2005 12:24 AM Unless the release those special 'handshaking' onboard chips, I doubt there will be clones. We'll have to wait and see how sophisticated this protection is going to be. If people find a way around it, and I am sure they might - it will become a matter of writing drivers to support all the crazy x86 hardware out there :P Performance wise I think there is going to be a hit, but for those people who use their macs for daily joe computing, I doubt its going to make any difference. There is no spoon HeatWare: http://www.heatware.com/eval.php?id=16337 Ebay:http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewFeedback&userid=niftydl

Mr. Hahn Unregistered

#36950 Posted on: 06/24/2005 12:28 AM Originally posted by Gand Unless the release those special 'handshaking' onboard chips, I doubt there will be clones. We'll have to wait and see how sophisticated this protection is going to be. If people find a way around it, and I am sure they might - it will become a matter of writing drivers to support all the crazy x86 hardware out there :P Performance wise I think there is going to be a hit, but for those people who use their macs for daily joe computing, I doubt its going to make any difference. Why take a hit? Intel has typically been capable of delivering pretty well performing pieces of hardware. --------------------------- I think it might be possible that apple will allow other companies to distribute the macs though. Kinda like how hp is distributing rebadged ipods and running itunes on windows pcs.

cmost Back in St. Olaf.... Posts: 414 Joined: 2002-08-13

#36951 Posted on: 06/24/2005 12:56 AM I very much doubt Apple will ever again allow Mactel clones, unless of course, they are willing to drastically reduce the price of Macs. In the early 90's, high end Mac clones like those produced by Power Computing had Apple just about near death. With every high end Mac clone Power Computing sold, Apple Computer would lose about $500. This was accomplished because the clone makers used comodity hardware (remember Apple's NuBus slots, odd-ball printer & video cables and other highly unconventional; proprietary technology?) Once the clone makers standardized on cheap, readily available hardware, their prices dropped dramatically! The only good thing that came out of this situation is that the Macintosh's market share grew significantly, thus cementing Apple's position in the playing field. Apple is now seeing the light again by moving to Intel. They should be able to lower their manufacturing costs by using readily available and cheap Wintel hardware (let's hope.) Apple's advantage over Wintel is their legendary high quality and customer support, a superior operating system to Windows, and basic culterual celebrity (just look at the iPod phenomenon.) The fact that Windows will be easily loaded on the new Macs in simply another feather in Apple's cap, as far as i'm concerned. If you're a consumer, you'll ask yourself: "Hmmm, should I buy this Dell and run Windows, or pay a few hundred dollars more for this beautifully styled Apple running super user-friendly (not to mention safe and secure) OS-X AND still be able to run all my favorite Windows apps?" I think the answer is pretty plain...go with the Mac. AMD Athlon 64 X2 3800+ 4096 MB DDR 400MHz DDR2 RAM GeForce 9400 GT w 512 MB DDR2 Primary OS: Parsix GNU/Linux (built from Debian Testing) Compiz-Fusion Git Other OS: Windows Server 2003 SP2 (as workstation); Windows Fundamentals for Legacy PCs; Windows XP Pro. SP3 - via VirtualBox

Martin Cracauer Unregistered

#36952 Posted on: 06/24/2005 02:37 AM Is that a 64 or 32 bit Darwin running on that Intel box?

rmn oh my, it's huge! Posts: 5894 Joined: 2002-01-26

#36953 Posted on: 06/24/2005 03:48 AM Originally posted by cmost If you're a consumer, you'll ask yourself: "Hmmm, should I buy this Dell and run Windows, or pay a few hundred dollars more for this beautifully styled Apple running super user-friendly (not to mention safe and secure) OS-X AND still be able to run all my favorite Windows apps?" I think the answer is pretty plain...go with the Mac. Hm... should I buy a computer where I get to pick the components, and where I can upgrade what I want when I want, or should I buy an overpriced [shampoo bottle] / [aluminium toaster] / [whatever the new Macs look like] with a configuration decided by someone else, that I can only upgrade with "approved" hardware? I think the answer is pretty plain... buy your computer based on what you want to do with it, not on the logo on the box. P.S. - Please explain how you can "run all your favourite Windows apps" while benefiting from that "super user friendly, safe and secure OS-X" ... :rolleyes: RMN ~~~

vash Registered User Posts: 54 Joined: 2002-08-07

#36954 Posted on: 06/24/2005 04:25 AM Originally posted by cmost If you're a consumer, you'll ask yourself: "Hmmm, should I buy this Dell and run Windows, or pay a few hundred dollars more for this beautifully styled Apple running super user-friendly (not to mention safe and secure) OS-X AND still be able to run all my favorite Windows apps?" I think the answer is pretty plain...go with the Mac. This kind of question isn't going to happen for quite some time. There are a few things that consumer are, which makes buying an Apple less than possible: 1. Many consumers are afraid of change 2. Many consumers aren't willing to pay for change 3. Most consumers are looking at the bottom line when buying almost anything Put the $999 Apple at Best Buy, right next to the $799 PC, running Windows and most of the time Apple will lose. I am telling people, today, that OSX is a nice system and a Mini is a good option to buy. They look at the price and ask about the lack of keyboard/mouse/monitor and realize that this week's Best Buy deal for an entire system just is a WAY better option than the Apple Mini (I have a Mini). The fact is: most people can use many different systems to get the same things done. So why even bother trying to learn/use/buy into Apple OSX and Apple h/w, when they can continue to use Windows to get what they want done? I know a few hard core Mac rabid fans and they will always opt for the Apple option, but they are in the sub .001% of the population of computer geeks I know (let alone the non geeks). On the application side, it will be a few years before you will find all of your favorite apps on the Mac (I prefer Trillian to Adium or Fire, for example). Until x86/OSX grows at huge numbers, developer support is going to continue to be small. Moving to x86 will grow the market, but the fact that it's an "Apple" will mean it's a "name" brand computer at "premium" prices -- putting that out of reach for many people.

cmost Back in St. Olaf.... Posts: 414 Joined: 2002-08-13

#36955 Posted on: 06/24/2005 06:31 AM Hm... should I buy a computer where I get to pick the components, and where I can upgrade what I want when I want, or should I buy an overpriced [shampoo bottle] / [aluminium toaster] / [whatever the new Macs look like] with a configuration decided by someone else, that I can only upgrade with "approved" hardware? Ok, ok...I should have specified "ask a typical consumer" Yeah, you and I will always want to roll our own workstations to our exact specifications, and even choose our own OS (i.e., Windows vs. Linux vs. *BSD). Power users will never subject themselves to a cookie-cutter box and put themselves at the mercy of some manufacturer. Unfortunately, most of John Q. Public doesn't know the difference between a Megabyte and a Mega watt. They do, however, know labels. They'll see the cool new Apple Mac and base thier purchasing decision on many factors that are completely unrelated to the specs of the machine or TCO. Such things as asthetics (the coolness factor,) what they see and here on the media, and what their friends tell them will play central roles. Couple all that with the common misconception of "if it can do more it must be better" and one can see how Apple may well have a real winner on its hands. Obviously the rest of us may consider the merits of the new Mac but will also seriously weigh the important factors before making a purchase. I'm mildly curious about this new Mac but like everyone else i'll just have to wait and see. AMD Athlon 64 X2 3800+ 4096 MB DDR 400MHz DDR2 RAM GeForce 9400 GT w 512 MB DDR2 Primary OS: Parsix GNU/Linux (built from Debian Testing) Compiz-Fusion Git Other OS: Windows Server 2003 SP2 (as workstation); Windows Fundamentals for Legacy PCs; Windows XP Pro. SP3 - via VirtualBox

Pontius Registered User Posts: 69 Joined: 2004-04-20

#36956 Posted on: 06/24/2005 10:40 AM How is it that they just anounced they would support Intel hardware a couple of weeks ago, and they already have an x86 distribution ready? You don't just write an OS port overnight. I'm guessing this deal has been in the works for years.

Kimpsu Registered User Posts: 515 Joined: 2003-01-09

#36957 Posted on: 06/24/2005 11:26 AM Originally posted by Pontius How is it that they just anounced they would support Intel hardware a couple of weeks ago, and they already have an x86 distribution ready? You don't just write an OS port overnight. I'm guessing this deal has been in the works for years. I just guess there has been an x86 port for years just in case they would need to change.

Stephen Wright Registered User Posts: 50 Joined: 2004-11-23

#36958 Posted on: 06/24/2005 12:55 PM yea your right, the words bases adn covering come to mind, i actually think it will be a good idea, i can move over to OSX which i have played with in the Apple Store in Regents St in London. Looked really nice to use. Anyway dual booting Win and slowly moving over to Osx apps sounds like a plan to me, the only stipulation i have it that they better have PC"ish" prices, if there gonna sell me a dual core PC it better not be TOO much more money than everyone elses........ I think if they can get Mac design in a PC at PCish prices, the only thing they will have problems with is making enough of them. 2 x P3 500, 400mb sdram, 1 x wd400jb & 1 x wb800bb 64mb GF4mx liteon 52xCDR, shes small but very cute :-)

VincentVega Xeon-powered Posts: 98 Joined: 2004-12-17

#36959 Posted on: 06/24/2005 01:09 PM Originally posted by Kimpsu I just guess there has been an x86 port for years just in case they would need to change. In the keynote that Steve Jobs made at WWDC, he said that they'd been compiling every version of OS X for Intel since day one. They had a team doing just that. They even showed an overhead photo of Apple's campus with a big cross hair (or some such) indicating the building concerned.

Ballkula 3D designer Posts: 123 Joined: 2002-04-21

#36960 Posted on: 06/24/2005 01:58 PM Well, ever since OS X was in it's earliest stages, it was official that there was a x86-version of the development platform. So, I don't understand why people are so surprised by it all..? ----------------------------------------------- "Even a battlesuit wont protect you from the void..." -----------------------------------------------

sAvAgE69 Unregistered

#36961 Posted on: 06/24/2005 05:37 PM I just cant wait to see the commercials for Apples now. Look here are the results (Higher scores are better) INTEL CPU Test Running on a MAC 9999999999999999.0 Average running on POWER 764.0 AMD Opteron 200.0 THeyr'e all pouitig that the test wasn't fair. Oh yes that's Right they're not running Apples Velocity Engine :rolleyes:

2CPU.com » News » June 2005 » First Look: Intel-based Apple