Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Intel Developer Macs Outperform G5s

timothy posted about 9 years ago | from the good-time-to-own-appl dept.

Desktops (Apple) 829

bonch writes "Developers working with the new Intel-based, developer-only Macs are impressed with the performance. The machines take as little as 10 seconds to boot from Apple logo to desktop, and apparently run Windows XP at 'blazing speeds.' Rosetta tests demonstrate the PowerPC-native build of Firefox running just as fast as it does on a high-end G5."

cancel ×

829 comments

Dual Boot (-1, Redundant)

fembots (753724) | about 9 years ago | (#13058178)

In addition to booting Windows XP at blazing speeds, the included version of Mac OS X for Intel takes "as little as 10 seconds"

On the opposite side of the coin, does that mean that future Mac OS can run on any Intel (and AMD?) machine? Or will it only run on an Intel specifically built for Mac?

Sometimes I have the need to develop on Mac environment for compatibility requirements, but I don't really want to buy a Mac just for that. For example I don't buy a TUX machine to run Linux.

Re:Dual Boot (5, Interesting)

maztuhblastah (745586) | about 9 years ago | (#13058207)

The developer version of OS X can run on non-apple hardware, but only if you think troubleshooting is fun (read: not well). The versions that will reach consumers on Intel systems will be DRM'ed to prevent this. It will be crackable, but the 1% of the population that can do this isn't Apple's target market anyways.

Re:Dual Boot (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13058381)

You are a fucking poser.

None of your crap is true.

Fucking asshole.

Re:Dual Boot (5, Insightful)

uncle_fausty (893001) | about 9 years ago | (#13058216)

For God's sake, will you please stop beating this issue to death? No, MacOS will not officially run on non-Apple hardware. Yes, l337 h4x0rs will probably find a way to make it happen. No, it will not be the rosy seamless computing experience MacOS provides on controlled hardware. Apple's success in OS development is in no small amount tied to their control of the hardware it runs on; don't expect that to go away anytime soon.

Re:Dual Boot (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13058217)

It'll require a Mac brand intel, this has been announced. Whether this is through some kind of magic BIOS trick or something, or just by only producing drivers for exactly one set of hardware isn't known for sure.

Re:Dual Boot (1)

Carthag (643047) | about 9 years ago | (#13058226)

Not in any foreseeable future. Steve Jobs has stated repeatedly that Mac OS X will not run on non-Apple Intel machines.

Re:Dual Boot (1)

$1uck (710826) | about 9 years ago | (#13058338)

Yeah, ok but will Windows boot on the appl-Intel machines?

Re:Dual Boot (1)

Gilmoure (18428) | about 9 years ago | (#13058230)

Apple makes money by selling machines, not software. They are not going to stop doing this just because they're changing one chip on their mother boards. OS X will only run on Apple Macs, without some serious hacking. This hacking will likely be difficult enough that people who would buy a Mac anyways will still buy a Mac. Hardware monkeys may be able to get it working on commodity hardware but it'll likely be kinda' flakey.

Re:Dual Boot (3, Interesting)

AKAImBatman (238306) | about 9 years ago | (#13058241)

Sometimes I have the need to develop on Mac environment for compatibility requirements, but I don't really want to buy a Mac just for that. For example I don't buy a TUX machine to run Linux.

You would if it was important enough to you. I bought mine so that I could support Apple users. i.e. I saw a very real use for the machine. (Best purchase I ever made, BTW.) With Linux, there's just too much noise and not enough signal to make anyone want to purchase a Linux-built Desktop machine.

Re:Dual Boot (1)

crimoid (27373) | about 9 years ago | (#13058242)

"does that mean that future Mac OS can run on any Intel (and AMD?) machine? Or will it only run on an Intel specifically built for Mac?"

Possibly the question of the year once the official x86 Macs hit the market. Apple says no - their hardware only. Many people feel that unless they do something funky there will be no way they can keep OSX86 off of generic hardware.

Re:Dual Boot (1)

Canberra Bob (763479) | about 9 years ago | (#13058244)

In a word, no

At the very least (1)

ndansmith (582590) | about 9 years ago | (#13058259)

In addition to booting Windows XP at blazing speeds . . . Seems like you could buy a Mactel (TM) box and then have a dual boot with WinXP, or some Linux distro, or maybe all three. Whether or not Mactels will be able to run WinXP in commercial release remains to be seen.

Re:Dual Boot (3, Informative)

cappadocius (555740) | about 9 years ago | (#13058260)

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

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

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

Re:Dual Boot (1)

Jherek Carnelian (831679) | about 9 years ago | (#13058367)

the final product will be tied to an special Intel DRM chip that will prevent it from running on other machines.

That article about Apple using DRM/TCPM was just pure speculation. [slashdot.org]
Please don't repeat slashtdot headlines as fact until you've at least RTFC (read the fine comments).

Re:Dual Boot (4, Insightful)

keytoe (91531) | about 9 years ago | (#13058373)

the final product will be tied to an special Intel DRM chip that will prevent it from running on other machines.
I keep seeing this spouted around as fact, but I have yet to see anywhere where this was stated in any official capacity. They may do that. They may not - they haven't said one way or another. Outside of the iTMS, Apple hasn't done much with DRM, and I'm pretty sure that was only to make the labels happy - so I'd say it's still pretty much up in the air.

So stop saying it like it's a fact, please.

Re:Dual Boot (1)

multiplexo (27356) | about 9 years ago | (#13058291)

On the opposite side of the coin, does that mean that future Mac OS can run on any Intel (and AMD?) machine? Or will it only run on an Intel specifically built for Mac?

No, and you're missing the point. Apple is not a hardware company, nor are they a software company, the reason why Macs work so well is that Apple is a platform company. I wouldn't want to run MacOS on standard Intel motherboards because standard Intel motherboards are loaded with obsolete crap (floppy controllers, parallel ports, RS-232 serial, etc, etc, etc). I don't mind an Intel processor based system as long as we can leave behind all of the cruft and crap that has been dragging down the PC for the last 10 years or so. In fact it will be interesting to see what Intel can do on a more restricted platform.

Similarly I'm not interested in running Windows XP on a intel system designed for MacOS. The ability to do so via RedBox or dualboot is a nice feature and might help Apple get into some corporate environments but I already have an Intel box to run Windows XP and I can't see how putting it on the Mac would make the experience any better as the lame OS architecture and compromises driven by the MS marketing department would still be there.

WinXP on Mac a fluke, Mac OS X Apple H.W only (1)

AHumbleOpinion (546848) | about 9 years ago | (#13058298)

Being able to run the current retail Windows XP on a Mac is a fluke, or more accurately a side effect of the temporary development systems using off-the-shelf PC hardware. Apple has a history of using one type of hardware during development of an OS and then requiring different hardware in the retail product. When the retail Apple hardware arrives I expect that it will be proprietary hardware that is not PC-compatible and a new version of Windows XP will be needed. I also expect that Mac OS X will be designed to only run on this proprietary hardware and will never be offered for generic PC compatible hardware. Mac hardware clones nearly killed Apple when they had some control over the cloners, letting Mac OS X run on generic hardware would be suicidal. Apple is largely a hardware company, their software exists to sell the hardware.

Re:WinXP on Mac a fluke, Mac OS X Apple H.W only (1, Insightful)

Droidking (720936) | about 9 years ago | (#13058345)

I hope you are wrong! I made the switch to macs a few years ago, but still keep a PC around because I still use a lot of programs that are Win XP only. If apple had a G5 that could dual boot mac and windows I would be in heaven!

Re:WinXP on Mac a fluke, Mac OS X Apple H.W only (1)

saterdaies (842986) | about 9 years ago | (#13058352)

While I agree that Apple will do everything in its power to stop people from getting Mac OS X on any non-Apple box, Apple has said that it is fine with people putting Windows on Apple boxes. Even better, applications like VirtualPC will allow users of Apple boxes to run Windows XP with little slowdown since the processor instructions don't need to be translated.

Re:WinXP on Mac a fluke, Mac OS X Apple H.W only (1)

Solr_Flare (844465) | about 9 years ago | (#13058375)

This entirely depends on how Apple locks down Mac OS X on their machines only. If it is simply an "apple brand" x86 motherboard with maybe an extra chip that says "this is an apple computer", then all you'll need to run windows is an appropriate driver. And, you can be sure Apple will likely provide those. Imagine the discomfort that must be going through all the PC clone distributors(like Dell) right now.

If an apple branded PC can run Windows better than a regular PC. Outside of price, why would you want to buy anything else?

There is a good possibility this has been Apple's strategy all along. Apple can't beat Microsoft head on(it wouldn't be healthy even to try). But, if you can control the hardware distrobution...

Good news! (3, Informative)

lucaschan.com (457832) | about 9 years ago | (#13058180)

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

Re:Good news! (2, Interesting)

justsomebody (525308) | about 9 years ago | (#13058231)

Agreed, Firefox is actualy very slow on my G5. It is slower than FFox on 1.4 P4, at least by factor 2.

Comparing FFox under OSX is nothing new. G5 is slower CPU than P4, but at certain jobs, quite a lot faster (with that I mean jobs when PPC functions were actualy used). It would be better to test Photoshop or some video application that was noticeable faster than the same app on Windows, which means that it actualy uses quite a few PPC functions to the fullest.

Re:Good news! (5, Informative)

marmoset (3738) | about 9 years ago | (#13058307)

That's becaus you're running the wrong builds. [beatnikpad.com] :)

Other reasons? (1)

Mr. Underbridge (666784) | about 9 years ago | (#13058330)

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

I've noticed the same. Any chance it's the version of firefox on Mac in addition to hardware issues? It also seems to me that Firefox on Mac has significantly more stability problems and, from my experience, memory leaks.

Of course, that won't take care of the PPC-build-on-Intel-with Rosetta argument, but it might mitigate the G5 vs. XP issues.

Anyone else, or is it just me?

First Post (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13058182)

Oh Yeah!

first post (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13058183)

if you are reading this then you are a huge faggot

Sweet (1)

Musteval (817324) | about 9 years ago | (#13058184)

Ten seconds to boot? I'm thinking that's more due to Apple than Intel.

So the G5 were dog slow after all (-1, Flamebait)

Augusto (12068) | about 9 years ago | (#13058187)

> Rosetta tests demonstrate the PowerPC-native build of Firefox running just as fast as it does on a high-end G5."

This just means that the G5 crap being better performing than the Intel stuff was pure marketing BS! I mean, an emulated application runs just as fast?!?!

Re:So the G5 were dog slow after all (2, Funny)

ResidntGeek (772730) | about 9 years ago | (#13058201)

Didn't you RTFA? It's not an "emulator", it's a dynamic binary translator. Duh...

Re:So the G5 were dog slow after all (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13058211)

I suspect that the parent will be quite wrongly moderated as a Troll in 5... 4... 3... 2... 1...

Re:So the G5 were dog slow after all (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13058300)

So, you are saying he warrants being moderated up as Funny?

You must, because his misguided point is completely absurd and ill-informed.

Re:So the G5 were dog slow after all (2, Interesting)

cnettel (836611) | about 9 years ago | (#13058233)

That's a quite remarkable emulation feat. I wonder if this is on x64 with the added registers or if it's just plain x86. I imagine that the added registers in x64 (or whatever you want to call it without using an AMD or Intel moniker), combined with less restricted usage combinations, would make emulating the PowerPC ISA well easier.

Re:So the G5 were dog slow after all (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13058247)

G5 runs floating point and vector operations faster than Intel chips, and can address more memory (without weird segment changes) than Pentiums of the same vintage. Thus they run scientific code and large media manipulations faster than Pentiums of the same vintage. They do not run branchy program logic code faster than Pentiums of the same vintage. Shockingly, most users spend most of their time browsing the web and writing emails, not running simulations or media transcodes; those that do are going to Opteron based systems.

Re:So the G5 were dog slow after all (2, Insightful)

raider_red (156642) | about 9 years ago | (#13058250)

It could also mean that firefox's apparent speed is based more on network throughput than code execution. I'd like to see some more robust benchmarks than "it seems just as fast".

We can start by how long it takes to crunch a lot of floating point operations and integer math operations.

Re:So the G5 were dog slow after all (1)

Mr2001 (90979) | about 9 years ago | (#13058329)

We can start by how long it takes to crunch a lot of floating point operations and integer math operations.

That might show the opposite results - misleadingly slow instead of misleadingly fast.

Rosetta dynamically translates machine instructions in such a way that it can eliminate branches that aren't taken. Mispredicted branches wreak havoc on the long pipelines of the Pentium 4, so code that can run straight through runs much faster. You can even "translate" x86 code to x86 code this way and speed it up significantly.

It doesn't make floating point or integer math operations any faster, but most users run applications that are chock full of branches, not math benchmarks.

Just like ASOT told us! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13058188)

So this is that "ten seconds boot" that As Seen On TV dude (a.k.a. Steve Jobs) was telling to us few months back.

Re:Just like ASOT told us! (1, Funny)

shobadobs (264600) | about 9 years ago | (#13058270)

Couldn't they work hard to reduce that to five seconds? Think how many lives would be saved.

FP! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13058189)

First Post!

Boot times disk/network bound (4, Insightful)

Toby The Economist (811138) | about 9 years ago | (#13058194)

OS boot times are usually disk and network bound.

I don't see how even an order of magnitude increase in CPU power could shorten boot times to the extent described here.

There must be other factors.

--
Toby

Re:Boot times disk/network bound (1)

cowscows (103644) | about 9 years ago | (#13058266)

I'm on a dual 2.5 G5, and my boot times are pretty darn fast. I've never timed it with a stopwatch, and it pauses so I can enter my username/password, but 10 seconds doesn't sound out of the question for Apple logo to desktop.

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

Re:Boot times disk/network bound (5, Funny)

Cecil (37810) | about 9 years ago | (#13058283)

There is something fishy about these numbers, I agree.

It also runs "Windows XP at blazing speeds"? Well, hm, that doesn't sound like a plain old P4 to me. :P

Re:Boot times disk/network bound (5, Interesting)

Rosyna (80334) | about 9 years ago | (#13058340)

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

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

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

Re:Boot times disk/network bound (3, Insightful)

antrik (538518) | about 9 years ago | (#13058364)

> OS boot times are usually disk and network bound.

While disk plays *some* role in OS startup, it's usually far from being the decisive factor. In a typical setup, a much larger amount of time is consumed on CPU use; and quite a large amount on various kinds of timeouts, related to networking, but not only -- various kinds of hardware probing etc. are the main reason why OS bootup doesn't even remotely scale with CPU and disk speed improvements.

CPU *does* make a considerable difference, but not an enormous one -- the other hardware in the box (which is also different for Intel Macs) might be quite relevant, too.

The real question (2, Interesting)

AKAImBatman (238306) | about 9 years ago | (#13058205)

The real question is, will their x86 Laptops maintain the four hour battery life Mac users have come to expect? Performance is nice, but it isn't always everything. Being able to work through a long car trip, plane flight, or train ride can be far MORE important to laptop users.

Re:The real question (4, Informative)

networkBoy (774728) | about 9 years ago | (#13058267)

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

Re:The real question (1)

AKAImBatman (238306) | about 9 years ago | (#13058305)

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


Sounds good to me, then. When can I buy one? ;-)

Re:The real question (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13058308)

Pretty sure a P4 doesn't give you 7h. Did you mean a Pentium-M?

Re:The real question (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13058324)

My P4 Inspiron 5150 gives me 6 to 7 hours with the screen dimmed.

Re:The real question (1)

Tim C (15259) | about 9 years ago | (#13058358)

Did you mean a Pentium-M?

Well, he said "p4-m", so I'm guessing yes...

Re:The real question (5, Funny)

savagedome (742194) | about 9 years ago | (#13058271)

Performance is nice, but it isn't always everything

Will you explain that to my girlfriend please? Please?

Re:The real question (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13058332)

Grow-up. Please.

Re:The real question (3, Funny)

lightyear4 (852813) | about 9 years ago | (#13058363)

Son, perhaps you should inflate her?

Re:The real question (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13058272)

They're based on Centrino chips, so yes.

Re:The real question (1)

ThinkingInBinary (899485) | about 9 years ago | (#13058288)

I don't know what hardware Apple's Intel laptops will use, but my Intel Pentium M laptop easily gets four to five hours of battery life if it's not doing something CPU-intensive. I can reliably get 3.5 to 4.5 hours, and I can usually get 4 to 5 if I am very conservative.

(It's an Asus M2400Ne with a 1.7 GHz Dothan Pentium-M.)

Re:The real question (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13058290)

You're kidding right? The current Pentium M uses far less power than the mobile G4. And if I'm not correct, one of the reasons why Apple switched to x86 was because the G5 was impossible to put into a notebook.

And the upcoming dual-core Yonah (which Apple will probably use) looks impressive too, and will likely have a great performance/power usage ratio, unlike the G4.

Re:The real question (2, Insightful)

chizu (669687) | about 9 years ago | (#13058293)

I don't see how this is a concern. My IBM T41P gets 6-8 hours of battery life with wireless and sound in frequant usage. It's not a slow machine either, 1.7GHz Pentium M, ATI FireGL graphics card. If IBM can do it, I'm sure Apple will have no problem producing a similar laptop.

Re:The real question (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13058314)

The real question is, will their x86 Laptops maintain the four hour battery life Mac users have come to expect?

Actually I carry two batteries for my G4/1.33 powerbook since the actual life is at most 3hr for light usage.

I'm afraid they will have to get used to the 6hr or more I can get on a thinkpad X series with pentium M CPU. And the huge speed boost. And reduced need for asbestos leg padding. Personally I'm looking forward to it.

Re:The real question (1)

Blitzenn (554788) | about 9 years ago | (#13058317)

Only four hours? I think you will find there are many compilations of laptops based on both intel processor lineage that easily outperform that.

Re:The real question (1)

AKAImBatman (238306) | about 9 years ago | (#13058386)

When I got my iBook a few years ago, 2.5 hours was pushing it for many Intel laptops. Dells were especially bad at slurping down their rather generous battery capacity. (In the time that my workplace provided me with a Dell laptop, I managed to chew through and spit about 3-5 battery packs. You always got that extra 15 minutes when the battery was brand new, then your time dropped like a rock.)

Re:The real question (1)

anti_analog (305106) | about 9 years ago | (#13058321)

My x86 laptop (hp zt3000 a year old already) does a good 3.5 hours on a battery, and some other x86 laptops last a lot longer than mine, and lots of those big 17 inch widescreen laptops last a good 2-3 minutes (ok, that's an exhaggeration).

Anyway, since many of intel's biggest advances lately have been in the mobile computing, I wouldn't worry about the future of apple laptops.

Re:The real question (1)

David Horn (772985) | about 9 years ago | (#13058348)

Hello? Ever heard of the Pentium M? Five to seven hours on a standard battery is completely normal.

Re:The real question (1)

Bronz (429622) | about 9 years ago | (#13058355)


If by four hours you mean three hours, and by three hours you mean two and a half hours, then I would expect everything to stay the same.

I love my 12" PowerBook, but I have no idea how Apple (or nearly all laptop vendors) get away with advertising such blatently false battery life. I can only assume their definition of "average use" means turning off your screen, doing nothing that spins the hard drive, and just staring at your computer (or in Apple's case, marveling at the glowing white logo. Wait -- that would have dimmed with the screen.)

Hmmm (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13058208)

so does that mean regular boxes you buy at the store are basically crappy? What I want to know is what have they done to boost performance and will it be implemented by other box manufacturers

Blah! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13058209)

In other new the PS3 is the fastest ever console, with the fastest ever GPU, and the most ever flops performed ever, and the most ever whatchamacallits per doodad in the grand universe.

And suprisingly the X-box 360 does it even greater and betterer.

In fact there are a surprising number of promises made by manufacturers and their developers that suprisingly don't live up to the eventual release.

Re:Blah! (1)

FLAGGR (800770) | about 9 years ago | (#13058334)

dude, the article is reports from developers, who have the systems in their hands. Apple didn't make much hype after they announced it.

some apps suffer? (2, Interesting)

ystar (898731) | about 9 years ago | (#13058219)

"The apps run at about 65 to 70 percent of their normal speed."

Doesn't sound like Rosetta is transparent for everything, then?

Re:some apps suffer? (2, Informative)

saterdaies (842986) | about 9 years ago | (#13058306)

I think by transparent they mean that it runs in OS X windows and looks and feels like an OS X application rather than the speed. Like, with Classic, all of the Apps ran after the Classic environment booted and they used the old Mac OS 9 widgets and windows and were just very seperate from OS X.

Impressed (4, Interesting)

Tamerlan (817217) | about 9 years ago | (#13058221)

Intel outperforming PowerPC was kind of expected. However I am impressed with a technology behind Rosetta. Are ther any open source projects like that?

Re:Impressed *NOT* (1, Flamebait)

justsomebody (525308) | about 9 years ago | (#13058268)

In desktop applications yes, on actual apps (hard on CPU and using PPC options) not.

First post (-1, Offtopic)

maztuhblastah (745586) | about 9 years ago | (#13058227)

But not fast enough to get me first post.

Good news (1)

Jon Abbott (723) | about 9 years ago | (#13058248)

I remember the first reports of benchmarks were a little less than desirable [thinksecret.com] ... This new feedback is music to my ears. I, for one, welcome our new Mactel overlords.

Re:Good news (1)

wyldeone (785673) | about 9 years ago | (#13058279)

Those benchmarks were heavily biased. The benchmarking utility that they used was being emulated by rosetta, screwing up the results.

64bit and vector code (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13058252)

So simple stuff runs as fast or faster...

How does the Mactel box do on floating point, 64bit and/or vector based code? The main reason for getting a G5 was to improve performance of 64bit/floating/vector code like is used in video production and scientific apps.

Since Intel has always been shaky in floating point and probably doesn't really know the meaning of vector I'm wondering how those kinds of apps will fare on the Mactel boxes.

Re:64bit and vector code (1, Informative)

Blitzenn (554788) | about 9 years ago | (#13058287)

"Since Intel has always been shaky in floating point "

I am not defending Intel, but your statement is wildly inaccurate. They did have an issue once and that was only with some purposefully obscure math. It was very difficult to reproduce and Intel recalled those processors. That was years ago. So I am not sure what you base that statement on.

Intel Graphics (5, Funny)

saterdaies (842986) | about 9 years ago | (#13058257)

Clearly the speed boost comes from the amazing graphics capabilities of the Intel Graphics Media Accelerator 900. I mean, the 900 stands for 450 times better than their last integrated system which was numberd 2, right?

Re:Intel Graphics (1)

what_the_frell (690581) | about 9 years ago | (#13058325)

Dude I really hope you're being sarcastic with the above comment - Intel hasn't made a decent graphics chipset yet.

Re:Intel Graphics (1)

saterdaies (842986) | about 9 years ago | (#13058388)

Yeah, it was meant to be funny. Guess I missed the mark.

Talk about a 180... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13058276)

So now that Apple is going to use Intel processors, Apple developers are allowed to note that Intel makes faster processors?

I should feel vindicated, I suppose.

Thats it. I'm switching. BACK TO LINUX. (-1, Flamebait)

torpor (458) | about 9 years ago | (#13058278)


I'm wiping my Powerbook disk, getting rid of OSX, and going all-Linux, whether its Intel or PowerPC.

I'm sick of chasing so-called 'computer vendors' around and around and around. I like the hardware design of the powerbook, but the brain-dead'edness of OSX' designers, paired with the clear manipulation, has just pushed me further, back into the F/OSS operating system camp.

I switched to Apple because I had lust for their hardware. No More! I'll find a vendor who makes nice-looking hardware, and port the linux kernel to it ..

What the... (4, Funny)

jav1231 (539129) | about 9 years ago | (#13058280)

So...the development Mac's run XP faster than other vendor's boxen? This is getting weird.

Re:What the... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13058360)

Yeah, I thought the same thing.

So, if we want to run Windows fast, we are we going to have to purchase a Mac?

Big-endian vs. little-endian (1)

hotspotbloc (767418) | about 9 years ago | (#13058281)

How is this little problem going to be resolved? I have to imagine the switch is going to cause a speed hit.

Re:Big-endian vs. little-endian (1)

hazee (728152) | about 9 years ago | (#13058350)

I'm sure someone here can provide a more complete answer, but I think the short answer is that the latest Intel chips can run either endian mode.

Windows XP Speed (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13058282)

"The machines take as little as 10 seconds to boot from Apple logo to desktop, and apparently run Windows XP at 'blazing speeds."

Isn't the dev machine just a normal Intel box? I don't see how fast Windows XP runs has anything to do with Mac OS X.

Re:Windows XP Speed (1)

Blutarsky (580739) | about 9 years ago | (#13058327)

The quote in context: "It's fast," said one developer source of Mac OS X running on Intel's Pentium processors. "Faster than [Mac OS X] on my Dual 2GHz Power Mac G5." In addition to booting Windows XP at blazing speeds, the included version of Mac OS X for Intel takes "as little as 10 seconds" to boot to the Desktop from when the Apple logo first displays on screen.

What developers ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13058301)

Funny no mention of who they are in TFA.

A lot of general tasks have often seemed significantly faster on Pentiums than PPCs. I remeber being blown away with the speed of a Pentium 90 running Windows 95 compared to an equivalent PPC running Mac OS back in the day. I don't think it's a secret that x86 has a lot more integer ooomph than PPC, although perhaps lags in areas of floating point.

Question I wonder though: has Apple been crippling OS X on PPC for a while now to make way for a planned Intel move ?

Could be Intel OS X is more 'optimized' (hate that word) than PPC in an attempt to get people to switch. I wouldn't put it past Jobs. There is no reason on paper why the G5 should still be so sluggish in general GUI areas. A minimal Linux install is often way faster than OS X on the same ppc hardware as well and that has to tell you something....

Tri-Boot (1)

Icyfire0573 (719207) | about 9 years ago | (#13058309)

I think it's going to be great for Apple. They are probably going to get a lot of people who want to try out "this Apple thing" and it's probably going to cost a little extra than getting that that cheapo POS from Dell, but if they don't like the Apple OS, they can always just revert to Windows. Also, those crazy Linux guys :-) can also buy an Apple machine and dual boot, or even triple boot, or if they get MOL working as well for Intel as they did for PPC (I don't really know how well they got it working) they can just run OS X inside Linux for development, testing, or gaming(HOPES!).

Missing the obvious question (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13058319)

Is OS X on intel faster than XP on the same box? I doubt it, but I'd like some confirmation!

Intel Mac's poor hd performance (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13058322)

I don't want to start a holy war here, but what is the deal with Intel Mac hard drive performance? I've been sitting here at my freelance gig in front of a Intel Mac for about 20 minutes now while it attempts to copy a 17 Meg file from one folder on the hard drive to another folder. 20 minutes. At home, on my Pentium Pro 200 running NT 4, which by all standards should be a lot slower than this Mac, the same operation would take about 2 minutes. If that.

In addition, during this file transfer, Safari will not work. And everything else has ground to a halt. Even SubEthaEdit is straining to keep up as I type this.

I won't bore you with the laundry list of other problems that I've encountered while working on my Intel Mac, but suffice it to say there have been many, not the least of which is I've never seen a Intel Mac that has run faster than its Wintel counterpart, despite the Intel Mac's faster chip architecture. My 486/66 with 8 megs of ram runs faster than this 300 mhz machine at times. From a productivity standpoint, I don't get how people can claim that the Intel Mac is a superior machine.

Intel Mac addicts, flame me if you'd like, but I'd rather hear some intelligent reasons why anyone would choose to use a Intel Mac over other faster, cheaper, more stable systems.

Re:Intel Mac's poor hd performance (1, Insightful)

mehtajr (718558) | about 9 years ago | (#13058333)

Maybe because it's a developer preview and not a shipping product?

TEH SNAPPPY, finally! (2, Funny)

otis wildflower (4889) | about 9 years ago | (#13058331)

Took long enough, but it looks like OS X will finally be 'snappy' ;)

Re:TEH SNAPPPY, finally! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13058377)

Actual developer quote : "I just installed Windows XP on my developer iMac and it runs much snappier than it did on my old Wintel box!"

XP

emulation... bah... (1)

tyates (869064) | about 9 years ago | (#13058351)

I remember when Apple switched from the 68040 to PPC, people were making claims that the emulated stuff ran about as fast as the native apps. Of course, they were all smoking crack - you could spot the difference between a native app and an emulated app a mile away. It would be nice if people told the truth this time - that you can run emulated app if you really need to, but it's basically going to suck, especially once you get used to the performance of native apps. If the developer doesn't care enough about my platform to at least recompile, then I'll take a pass on the app I think.

Integer vs. Altivec (4, Interesting)

WatertonMan (550706) | about 9 years ago | (#13058354)

I think most of us expected the P4 to perform better for Integer like code on applications that don't effectively SMP. So that's not that surprising. I am surprised at the speed of Rosetta, although that will be a mixed bag once again depending upon the application.

What I'm really interested in is speed on stuff that really leveraged Altivec, like A/V programs. I'm curious about Quicktime 7 for instance. Now some of these programs can use some similar functions on the P4. But from what the Altivec folks were telling me some code ought differ by as much as 50%. (i.e. the PPC is twice as fast) A nice simple test is to compare programs like iMovie on both platforms.

osx (0, Troll)

timmarhy (659436) | about 9 years ago | (#13058359)

the only way they could prevent it running on standard hardware is to try harcode in some kind of depenency check for some vendor chip. and there's no way i would support such retarded ideas. don't buy into this kind of crap, please.

Welcome to Apple FUD (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13058368)

I don't know what they gave these "developers" but that is total bullshit. I've also heard other "developers" saying the exact opposite so ...

Now that there's a monopoly (1)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | about 9 years ago | (#13058369)

just think of how cheap the next Intel chips will be!

oh, wait, no, that means the prices will be going up ...

um, darn. how was this good again?

Sold! with a caveat./ public promise. (1)

WarmNoodles (899413) | about 9 years ago | (#13058370)

Promise: My next machine will be my first Mac purchase.
It must hoever use a non Intel CPU and be no more than 35% populated with Intel chips.

I am dead serious. I hope AMD is a choice.

--
Intel is the evil empire your momma warned you about.

Good news, everyone! (1)

iamdrscience (541136) | about 9 years ago | (#13058374)

So... good news for PC fanboys and Mac fanboys alike then, eh? Mac fanboys can claim that things are running well because of Apple's software which is simultaneously technically superior and like, super-cool, why would you waste your time with a crappy company like Microsoft? PC fanboys can claim that it was actually just the inherent superiority of Intel chips and that those mac fools have been using the wrong architecture all these years.

So those G5 fanatics were delusional? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13058385)


So it really was just marketting hype when Apple
would claim their hardware was faster than Intel
even given lower clock speeds?

For years my annoying Mac friends would come up
to me and say, "My Mac is faster than your PC. I'm cool". I always thought Jobs must be putting
something in the Kool-Aid at those Macworld expos.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...