-
Join the MyBroadband community
South Africa’s biggest forum. Discuss, discover, and connect with thousands of members.
-
Question of the Day: What's the most interesting small town you've visited in South Africa?
Apple unveils first Intel computer
- Thread starter rpm
- Start date
There are other resources apart from the article but perhaps I should have stuck with I'm gonna get oneneio said:
EDIT - to clarify - you can already dual boot with osx and linux. According to this AP article I found here apple wont prevent users from loading windows - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10794396/from/RS.3/
Hence triple-booting.
Last edited:
stoke
Honorary Master
I'm confused ...
Wasnt Apple supposed to bring out an OS that works on me normal Intel/AMD based pc ?
Why the proprietory hardware still ?
Whoop de doo - i'll just go and buy a PSP and a PSIII and an IPOD and a PVR and a Windows Vista machine as well shall I ?
Wasnt Apple supposed to bring out an OS that works on me normal Intel/AMD based pc ?
Why the proprietory hardware still ?
Whoop de doo - i'll just go and buy a PSP and a PSIII and an IPOD and a PVR and a Windows Vista machine as well shall I ?
Skeptik
Banned
Unlikely to be able to run Vista on it 'coz it's not 64 bit. Its fast but not cutting edge. Chips with more beef on the way mid-year.
No they always planned on making os x intel compatible but its intended for their machines. Keep in mind Apple has always been mainly about the hardware - the os just came with it.stoke said:
The hardware isnt proprietary - you'll be able to run windows and linux as well as the intel version of osx. The software may be but thats already been hacked.
Skeptik
Banned
It is a bit confusingstoke said:
Apple now use the Intel x86 line of processors - so in theory OSx and Windoze should run on both BUT Apple have tied their OS to their hardware! To complicate things even further, you may even be able to run OSx on a PS3Skeptik
Banned
The new Apples have Core Duo (Yonah) chips which are 32 bit, as opposed to the older G5, which is full 64. <A step backwards some would say>. Vista will be mainly 64, but will load on older PCs where you may get a performance loss.JStrike said:
Skeptik : It is not a step backwards. It is a massive step forwards (As far as laptops go). It is a dualcore, making the performance gain pretty massive. Even more so when you look at performance per watt (Important for laptops)
Vista will not be "mainly 64bit". It will have a 64bit version, just like there is a 64bit version of XP. (And some of the versions such as Vista Starter Edition will not have 64bit support at all)
But as for triple booting, not sure that XP can handle EFI. I think it requires BIOS. Might have to wait for Vista if you want to triple boot
Vista will not be "mainly 64bit". It will have a 64bit version, just like there is a 64bit version of XP. (And some of the versions such as Vista Starter Edition will not have 64bit support at all)
But as for triple booting, not sure that XP can handle EFI. I think it requires BIOS. Might have to wait for Vista if you want to triple boot
The processor speed on this thing is ridiculous, and like all things mac the design is sublime. However, I would wait for it to evolve a generation or two. Also this mac only has firewire 400, and the hard drive is only 5400 rpm, in 80, 100, and 120, which is a little wierd as I thought by now they would be upping the speed and space. 500gb would be great. The screen is 67% brighter but it's also only available in 15.4". The iSight, and remote, are very nice touches though.
I must be honest though, I'm a little bit dissapointed in that this mac will require Rosetta to run older 3rd party software, this may result in slower speeds for 3rd party software, and apple software will require and upgrade (at a small price... ha ha ha).
The imac is very nice though.
As for running Windows on this thing, that's like transporting your garden fertilizer in an Aston Martin Vanquish. Anyway, you'll get to pretend your pc's a mac pretty soon when they get windows vista stable enough for a public release.
I must be honest though, I'm a little bit dissapointed in that this mac will require Rosetta to run older 3rd party software, this may result in slower speeds for 3rd party software, and apple software will require and upgrade (at a small price... ha ha ha).
The imac is very nice though.
As for running Windows on this thing, that's like transporting your garden fertilizer in an Aston Martin Vanquish. Anyway, you'll get to pretend your pc's a mac pretty soon when they get windows vista stable enough for a public release.
kolakidd : How is Rosetta dissapointing? What were you expecting them to do?
Rosetta manages to run most 3rd party apps at pretty good speeds. There is only a noticable speed loss on heavy duty professional apps. MS Office seems to run perfectly
As for Vista, it will take another version or two before they get the polish right. It took Apple quite a few releases before even they managed to get it right
Rosetta manages to run most 3rd party apps at pretty good speeds. There is only a noticable speed loss on heavy duty professional apps. MS Office seems to run perfectly
As for Vista, it will take another version or two before they get the polish right. It took Apple quite a few releases before even they managed to get it right
Rosetta is important as it allows users to use the legacy apps while the programmers are playing catch up. Interestingly enough if I remember correctly one of the reviewers still claimed apps ran even faster under Rosetta than they did natively.
It's dissapointing in regard to the upgrade costs, I thought they might at least distribute the app upgrades for apple software like FCP, and Aperture free. I only use heavy duty apps, so it is a little inconvenient. I also worry that developers will take a long time to catch on, and then offer dual support, much the same as they did when they Moved from OS9 to OSX architecture.
If they polished Vista any more the may as well start selling it in a black box with a big silver X on it.
h++p://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/technology/circuits.html
If they polished Vista any more the may as well start selling it in a black box with a big silver X on it.
h++p://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/technology/circuits.html
stoke
Honorary Master
But - business wise - if apple is to take on MS, they have to have to have to provide a stable reliable OS that runs on my pc currently running windows and i will begin to see apple and the other apple products as a working stable alternative.
Until then - it's microsoft for me - through and through.
I am disapointed. Bleugh.
But thanks 4 all the answers
.
Until then - it's microsoft for me - through and through.
I am disapointed. Bleugh.
But thanks 4 all the answers
.
Or better still - http://www.youtube.com/w/Windows-Vista:-First-of-a-Kind-Features?v=cwCE3dF1Ts0&eurl=kolakidd said:
The way a lot of people see it is Apple trying to take on the likes of Dell rather than microsoft.stoke said:
That they're going to let people run XP on their hardware shows that the os itself is almost incidental. For that reason I think it will be a long time before you see a sanctioned version of OsX designed for the huge array of hardware that they'd have to accommodate. Apple wants to sell its hardware more than anything.
Its a pity though - think of the market thats going to open up with windows shift to vista. With XP home support ending at the end of 2006 there are going to be a lot of unsupported PCs out there that could conceivably run OsX. I wonder if Apple didnt strike a deal with M$oft to keep osx tethered to apple hardware in return for another five years of MS Office for Mac.
Last edited: