Re: [Finale] OT: Apple eyes the Pentium M
On 8 Jun 2005 at 23:10, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://www.xlr8yourmac.com/ First, the thing is fast. Native apps readily beat a single 2.7 G5, and sometimes beat duals. Really. See...this is the beauty of the Mac OSX operating system...put the Mac OS on a slower machine/chip and it will run faster than Windows on that same machine/chipput it on a faster Intel chip and it will scream compared to windows! Er, what? What is your basis for any comparison to Windows based on the information quoted from www.xler8yourmac.com? Who said I was basing it off of this article? And has there been any benchmarking comparing OS X Finale to Windows Finale? I'm not a Mac user, but it seems to me that from what I've heard y'all complaining about, Windows is going to win hands down. Of course not! No bench marking of Finale at this point...Coda is so far behind the eight ball right now..they are just trying to get up to XCode pace right now as far as I can discern.. they are just trying to get out of the gate..its a moot point. But I'm rootin' for 'em! I'll consider this post as a response to Jari's request for a benchmark study as well. I had a link but it has since been taken down (oops..for obvious reasons). As you (we) can imagine, these studies are in their early stages. Developers at WWDC are being given loner G5's (in quotes you'll notice) which have Intel chips in them...but they are specifically required to stay mum about any bench mark testing. Regarding my own benchmark testing (O.K., maybe you did or didn't ask) ...my testing...as opposed to laboratory benchmark testing...takes place in the real world under the conditions of sitting at a desk with a cup of loose leaf tea in front of both a PC and Mac...as opposed to in the laboratory. In the real world things are messy...spy ware programs, anti-virus programs etc. run in the background on windows machines...and are ultimately slowing them down regardless. Something that thus far, Apple doesn't have to worry about. There is an analogy that makes sense to me...when a windows programmer gets a flat tire, he just bolts another good tire to the outside of the axle rather than fixing the flat. Mac programmers anticipate a flat tire and do their best to have an alternative plan. I've owned both windows machines and Apple machines. I'm sticking with Apple...that's just my personal preference. In addition...historically, Apple machines have run more efficiently on lower mhz machines vs. their PC counterparts...(google it) though reports are somewhat subjective and I prefer to not get into yet another Mac vs. PC war. I'll stick with my own experience (benchmark testing) thank you. The machine(s) that Steve jobs used in his demo are merely place holders if you will, beta machinesI expect that the machines that Macintosh ultimately releases will far outpace these beta machines. And I think even so the beta machines are hanging in there quite well. [...] They run Windows fine. All the chipset is standard Intel stuff, so you can download drivers and run XP on the box. I'm not sure how this will play out...does Apple allow windows to run natively on their boxes or do they close the loopholes and allow only OS X . . . Folks don't seem to be paying attention to the things posted on this list, because I posted a couple of days ago a quote from an Apple spokesman that answers this question: http://news.com.com/2100-7341_3-5733756.html After Jobs' presentation, Apple Senior Vice President Phil Schiller addressed the issue of running Windows on Macs, saying there are no plans to sell or support Windows on an Intel-based Mac. That doesn't preclude someone from running it on a Mac. They probably will, he said. We won't do anything to preclude that. However, Schiller said the company does not plan to let people run Mac OS X on other computer makers' hardware. We will not allow running Mac OS X on anything other than an Apple Mac, he said. We won't do anything to preclude that seems pretty definitive to me. No...I (or folks) didn't ignore your post...but remember, as recently as May 2005, Apple was saying about the move to Intel chips while Apple said the news should be placed 'in the category of rumour and speculation...(Wall Street journal) Definitive is relative...:-) So, buy the rumor sell the news...it is all up in the air as of now... Nonetheless...it is a win win situation (IMHO) for Apple if Apple decides that Windows is allowed to run on Apple machines natively but that OS X (or whatever the next gen of the OS is named) isn't allowed to run on a windows machine. Having said that, I don't think that Apple will ship it's machines running Windows necessarily...but then again who knows...Steve Jobs is smarter than I am! I'm getting the feeling from the little news I have been able to gather from busy developers up
Re: [Finale] OT: Apple eyes the Pentium M
At 6/9/2005 03:01 PM, dhbailey wrote: Eden - Lawrence D. wrote: When Apple goes Intel, will Macs become targets for the latest viruses like our PC friends, or will a Mac still be a Mac? Since the viruses attack the users of a particular OS (windows users get viruses, Mac users don't) I don't see any reason that Mac users will be any more vulnerable. But with all the Mac bragging about being virus free, I'm really surprised some virus-writer hasn't written one just to stop the bragging. Macs used to have viruses. In late 80's, OS6 was particularly vulnerable to floppy disk viruses. I had Mac viruses before I ever got a Window's virus. Phil Daley AutoDesk http://www.conknet.com/~p_daley ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT: Apple eyes the Pentium M
At 03:51 AM 06/10/2005, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: studies are in their early stages. Developers at WWDC are being given loner G5's I had to read this a couple of times -- you mean loaner, yes? I hate to think of a bunch of computers, each nursing their own whiskey at the end of a bar somewhere g Aaron. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT: Apple eyes the Pentium M
Aaron Sherber wrote: At 03:51 AM 06/10/2005, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: studies are in their early stages. Developers at WWDC are being given loner G5's I had to read this a couple of times -- you mean loaner, yes? I hate to think of a bunch of computers, each nursing their own whiskey at the end of a bar somewhere g It's quarter to three, There's no more CPUs, except you and me, So set 'em Joe, I've got a little OS, That you ought to know. We're drinking my friend, To the end, Of the IBM road, Make it one for my G5, And one more for the code. With sincerest apologies to Johnny Mercer! -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT: Apple eyes the Pentium M
David Fenton wrote: After Jobs' presentation, Apple Senior Vice President Phil Schiller addressed the issue of running Windows on Macs, saying there are no plans to sell or support Windows on an Intel-based Mac. That doesn't preclude someone from running it on a Mac. They probably will, he said. We won't do anything to preclude that. However, Schiller said the company does not plan to let people run Mac OS X on other computer makers' hardware. We will not allow running Mac OS X on anything other than an Apple Mac, he said. We won't do anything to preclude that seems pretty definitive to me. Sorry, I must be dense. It doesn't seem definitive at all to me. Does it mean that some genius kid hacker could modify the new Mac (or Windows) to run Windows, or that anybody could install Windows and all will be well? Will it run in a way that we will be happy with, at a reasonable speed with all ports addressed, MIDI and networking and printers and external drives and all? Christopher ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT: Apple eyes the Pentium M
On Jun 10, 2005, at 7:26 AM, Aaron Sherber wrote: At 03:51 AM 06/10/2005, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: studies are in their early stages. Developers at WWDC are being given loner G5's I had to read this a couple of times -- you mean loaner, yes? I hate to think of a bunch of computers, each nursing their own whiskey at the end of a bar somewhere g Ha ha! I had the same mental image, and then assumed that they were one-off prototypes, and it was only when I said it to myself out loud that I got it. What a strange bastard language this is. Christopher ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT: Apple eyes the Pentium M
Christopher Smith wrote: David Fenton wrote: After Jobs' presentation, Apple Senior Vice President Phil Schiller addressed the issue of running Windows on Macs, saying there are no plans to sell or support Windows on an Intel-based Mac. That doesn't preclude someone from running it on a Mac. They probably will, he said. We won't do anything to preclude that. However, Schiller said the company does not plan to let people run Mac OS X on other computer makers' hardware. We will not allow running Mac OS X on anything other than an Apple Mac, he said. We won't do anything to preclude that seems pretty definitive to me. Sorry, I must be dense. It doesn't seem definitive at all to me. Does it mean that some genius kid hacker could modify the new Mac (or Windows) to run Windows, or that anybody could install Windows and all will be well? Will it run in a way that we will be happy with, at a reasonable speed with all ports addressed, MIDI and networking and printers and external drives and all? Once you have a Pentium-class processor and an available partition on a hard drive which you can make into a primary DOS partition, you can install and run windows. The statement seems essentially to be saying that on the new Macs which will be using the Intel chips, people could partition their hard drives and install Windows, and Apple won't build in any devices which would prevent that. Although I'm not sure that windows would necessarily work with the chipsets used to drive the Mac devices, so that might be an issue. But Apple seems to be saying it won't build any you can't install or run Windows, this is a MAC-ONLY machine code or hardware into the new machines. As for whether it will run in a way that any windows user would be happy with is an entirely different matter, but that might only be a matter of time before Microsoft builds Mac device drivers into some future Service Pack or entirely new windows OS. -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT: Apple eyes the Pentium M
On 10 Jun 2005 at 0:51, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 8 Jun 2005 at 23:10, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://www.xlr8yourmac.com/ First, the thing is fast. Native apps readily beat a single 2.7 G5, and sometimes beat duals. Really. See...this is the beauty of the Mac OSX operating system...put the Mac OS on a slower machine/chip and it will run faster than Windows on that same machine/chipput it on a faster Intel chip and it will scream compared to windows! Er, what? What is your basis for any comparison to Windows based on the information quoted from www.xler8yourmac.com? Who said I was basing it off of this article? In other words, there wer no facts in evidence at all? As I thought! And has there been any benchmarking comparing OS X Finale to Windows Finale? I'm not a Mac user, but it seems to me that from what I've heard y'all complaining about, Windows is going to win hands down. Of course not! No bench marking of Finale at this point...Coda is so far behind the eight ball right now..they are just trying to get up to XCode pace right now as far as I can discern.. they are just trying to get out of the gate..its a moot point. But I'm rootin' for 'em! OK, two strikes. . . I'll consider this post as a response to Jari's request for a benchmark study as well. I had a link but it has since been taken down (oops..for obvious reasons). As you (we) can imagine, these studies are in their early stages. Developers at WWDC are being given loner G5's (in quotes you'll notice) which have Intel chips in them...but they are specifically required to stay mum about any bench mark testing. I think you mean loaner PCs ;). Regarding my own benchmark testing (O.K., maybe you did or didn't ask) ...my testing...as opposed to laboratory benchmark testing...takes place in the real world under the conditions of sitting at a desk with a cup of loose leaf tea in front of both a PC and Mac...as opposed to in the laboratory. In the real world things are messy...spy ware programs, anti-virus programs etc. run in the background on windows machines...and are ultimately slowing them down regardless. Something that thus far, Apple doesn't have to worry about. Nor do I. I don't run full-time virus monitoring, because the benefit is not worth the CPU cycles it uses up. There is an analogy that makes sense to me...when a windows programmer gets a flat tire, he just bolts another good tire to the outside of the axle rather than fixing the flat. Mac programmers anticipate a flat tire and do their best to have an alternative plan. I've owned both windows machines and Apple machines. I'm sticking with Apple...that's just my personal preference. Evidence for this analogy? It may be your opinion, but I don't know what evidence has caused you to reach it. There are so many different programmers on Windows (literally, millions) that blanket statements about their practices as a group seem self-refuting. In addition...historically, Apple machines have run more efficiently on lower mhz machines vs. their PC counterparts...(google it) though reports are somewhat subjective and I prefer to not get into yet another Mac vs. PC war. I'll stick with my own experience (benchmark testing) thank you. In other words, you were talking out your ass. The machine(s) that Steve jobs used in his demo are merely place holders if you will, beta machinesI expect that the machines that Macintosh ultimately releases will far outpace these beta machines. And I think even so the beta machines are hanging in there quite well. Of course they will! So any benchmarks that anyone has done with them would be completely meaningless, since they would be run with pre- production code on pre-production hardware. Firefox and Mozilla were both slow before they reached release 1.0 because there was still a lot of test and debugging code in them, and they hadn't been optimized for speed. Once the crud was taken out, the performance of both increased markedly, more than enough to be noticeable by even the most casual user. That's the nature of production code vs. pre-production code, so even if the link was still valid, it would be completely meaningless. [...] They run Windows fine. All the chipset is standard Intel stuff, so you can download drivers and run XP on the box. I'm not sure how this will play out...does Apple allow windows to run natively on their boxes or do they close the loopholes and allow only OS X . . . Folks don't seem to be paying attention to the things posted on this list, because I posted a couple of days ago a quote from an Apple spokesman that answers this question: http://news.com.com/2100-7341_3-5733756.html After Jobs' presentation, Apple Senior Vice President Phil Schiller addressed the issue of running Windows on Macs, saying there are no plans to sell or support Windows on
Re: [Finale] OT: Apple eyes the Pentium M
On 10 Jun 2005 at 8:39, Christopher Smith wrote: David Fenton wrote: After Jobs' presentation, Apple Senior Vice President Phil Schiller addressed the issue of running Windows on Macs, saying there are no plans to sell or support Windows on an Intel-based Mac. That doesn't preclude someone from running it on a Mac. They probably will, he said. We won't do anything to preclude that. However, Schiller said the company does not plan to let people run Mac OS X on other computer makers' hardware. We will not allow running Mac OS X on anything other than an Apple Mac, he said. We won't do anything to preclude that seems pretty definitive to me. Sorry, I must be dense. It doesn't seem definitive at all to me. Does it mean that some genius kid hacker could modify the new Mac (or Windows) to run Windows, or that anybody could install Windows and all will be well? Will it run in a way that we will be happy with, at a reasonable speed with all ports addressed, MIDI and networking and printers and external drives and all? The Apple spokesman definitively aswered the question you cut out of the quotation which was: I'm not sure how this will play out...does Apple allow windows to run natively on their boxes or do they close the loopholes and allow only OS X . . . That's all I was responding to. How they do it, to what degree, I don't know. But Apple is on record as saying they're not going to do anything on purpose to try to prohibit Windows from running. That doesn't in any way imply they'll be doing anything to *help*, either, such as providing Windows drivers for Apple-created hardware devices. It's important to observe and retain context. -- David W. Fentonhttp://www.bway.net/~dfenton David Fenton Associateshttp://www.bway.net/~dfassoc ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT: Apple eyes the Pentium M
On 10 Jun 2005 at 0:51, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There is an analogy that makes sense to me...when a windows programmer gets a flat tire, he just bolts another good tire to the outside of the axle rather than fixing the flat. Mac programmers anticipate a flat tire and do their best to have an alternative plan. I've owned both windows machines and Apple machines. I must have missed this on the first go-round. Mac programmers are no more clueful than Windows programmers. They have as many errors in their code as Windows programmers do, in fact, I will bet dollars to doughnuts that they have more errors, because they have not been under the gun of virus writers. As soon as the Mac has a significant share of the marketplace, they will have as many viruses as Windows. But, don't hold your breath. That's not going to happen in the next 10 years. I expect Linux to reach that milestone earlier. Phil Daley AutoDesk http://www.conknet.com/~p_daley ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT: Apple eyes the Pentium M
On 10 Jun 2005, at 8:07 AM, dhbailey wrote: Aaron Sherber wrote: At 03:51 AM 06/10/2005, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: studies are in their early stages. Developers at WWDC are being given loner G5's I had to read this a couple of times -- you mean loaner, yes? I hate to think of a bunch of computers, each nursing their own whiskey at the end of a bar somewhere g It's quarter to three, There's no more CPUs, except you and me, So set 'em Joe, I've got a little OS, That you ought to know. We're drinking my friend, To the end, Of the IBM road, Make it one for my G5, And one more for the code. With sincerest apologies to Johnny Mercer! Heh. Nicely done, David. - Darcy - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brooklyn, NY ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT: Apple eyes the Pentium M
Aaron Sherber wrote: At 03:51 AM 06/10/2005, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: studies are in their early stages. Developers at WWDC are being given loner G5's I had to read this a couple of times -- you mean loaner, yes? I hate to think of a bunch of computers, each nursing their own whiskey at the end of a bar somewhere g It's quarter to three, There's no more CPUs, except you and me, So set 'em Joe, I've got a little OS, That you ought to know. We're drinking my friend, To the end, Of the IBM road, Make it one for my G5, And one more for the code. LOL! :-) Oops! I guess it must have been me nursing a whiskey at the end of a bar somewhere as I typed that line! But I must say, your response(s) were worth my embarrassment! -K ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT: Apple eyes the Pentium M
Who said I was basing it off of this article? In other words, there wer no facts in evidence at all? That's one interpretationthere are others. loner G5's I think you mean loaner PCs ;). Yes I did and I rather liked the responses that were posted in response to my misspelling. Nor do I. I don't run full-time virus monitoring, because the benefit is not worth the CPU cycles it uses up. I hope you aren't passing the viruses along as the result of not saying on top of this. In addition...historically, Apple machines have run more efficiently on lower mhz machines vs. their PC counterparts...(google it) though reports are somewhat subjective and I prefer to not get into yet another Mac vs. PC war. I'll stick with my own experience (benchmark testing) thank you. In other words, you were talking out your ass. If you are saying that the many years of experience I have been sitting in front of both PC's and Macs...reading and comparing specs for both...running them both...etc. etc. counts for nothing and that I have absolutely no idea what I am talking about, then yes, I am talking out of my ass as you so tastefully put it. -K ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT: Apple eyes the Pentium M
On 10 Jun 2005 at 13:19, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [quoting me:] Nor do I. I don't run full-time virus monitoring, because the benefit is not worth the CPU cycles it uses up. I hope you aren't passing the viruses along as the result of not saying on top of this. How, exactly, could I do that? I'm all ears. I know plenty of reasons why it's not possible at all, but I'd sure like to hear what you think could possibly be happening here. Free clue: AV software does not prevent you from infecting your computer, nor does it prevent you from passing them on. In addition...historically, Apple machines have run more efficiently on lower mhz machines vs. their PC counterparts...(google it) though reports are somewhat subjective and I prefer to not get into yet another Mac vs. PC war. I'll stick with my own experience (benchmark testing) thank you. In other words, you were talking out your ass. If you are saying that the many years of experience I have been sitting in front of both PC's and Macs...reading and comparing specs for both...running them both...etc. etc. counts for nothing and that I have absolutely no idea what I am talking about, then yes, I am talking out of my ass as you so tastefully put it. If you'd posted the paragraph beginning In addition...historically instead of nattering on about performance and benchmarks, I don't believe anyone would have responded as they did. *How* you say something is as important as what you're trying to say. Of course, I also think the meaning of the present version of your assertion is substantially more limited than that of your original. -- David W. Fentonhttp://www.bway.net/~dfenton David Fenton Associateshttp://www.bway.net/~dfassoc ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT: Apple eyes the Pentium M
Earlier on June 10, 2005, David W. Fenton wrote: In other words, you were talking out your ass. On Jun 10, 2005, at 3:46 PM, David W. Fenton wrote: *How* you say something is as important as what you're trying to say. Are these sentences related? Chuck Chuck Israels 230 North Garden Terrace Bellingham, WA 98225-5836 phone (360) 671-3402 fax (360) 676-6055 www.chuckisraels.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT: Apple eyes the Pentium M
On 10 Jun 2005 at 16:00, Chuck Israels wrote: Earlier on June 10, 2005, David W. Fenton wrote: In other words, you were talking out your ass. On Jun 10, 2005, at 3:46 PM, David W. Fenton wrote: *How* you say something is as important as what you're trying to say. Are these sentences related? I didn't make any exceptions for my own words. But I fully intended all the connotations and resonances that go along with my method of expression, so it said exactly what I wanted to say. That does not seem to be the case with the issue that provoked me to utter the second comment. -- David W. Fentonhttp://www.bway.net/~dfenton David Fenton Associateshttp://www.bway.net/~dfassoc ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT: Apple eyes the Pentium M
In other words, you were talking out your ass. If you are saying that the many years of experience I have been sitting in front of both PC's and Macs...reading and comparing specs for both...running them both...etc. etc. counts for nothing and that I have absolutely no idea what I am talking about, then yes, I am talking out of my ass as you so tastefully put it. If you'd posted the paragraph beginning In addition...historically instead of nattering on about performance and benchmarks, I don't believe anyone would have responded as they did. *How* you say something is as important as what you're trying to say. I tire of the overly confrontational nature of some of your emails David, can't you back it off a little to make the list a bit more enjoyable? Simon Troup Digital Music Art ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT: Apple eyes the Pentium M
On 11 Jun 2005 at 1:18, Simon Troup wrote: In other words, you were talking out your ass. If you are saying that the many years of experience I have been sitting in front of both PC's and Macs...reading and comparing specs for both...running them both...etc. etc. counts for nothing and that I have absolutely no idea what I am talking about, then yes, I am talking out of my ass as you so tastefully put it. If you'd posted the paragraph beginning In addition...historically instead of nattering on about performance and benchmarks, I don't believe anyone would have responded as they did. *How* you say something is as important as what you're trying to say. I tire of the overly confrontational nature of some of your emails David, can't you back it off a little to make the list a bit more enjoyable? Somene makes a a categorical and inflammatory statement, then essentially retracts it, and *I'm* the one that gets flamed for calling them on it? \/\/hatever. -- David W. Fentonhttp://www.bway.net/~dfenton David Fenton Associateshttp://www.bway.net/~dfassoc ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT: Apple eyes the Pentium M
Somene makes a a categorical and inflammatory statement, then essentially retracts it, and *I'm* the one that gets flamed for calling them on it? No - I'm saying outright that on occasion you are terse and impertinent to the point of rudeness. Simon Troup Digital Media Art ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT: Apple eyes the Pentium M
On 11 Jun 2005 at 2:54, Simon Troup wrote: Somene makes a a categorical and inflammatory statement, then essentially retracts it, and *I'm* the one that gets flamed for calling them on it? No - I'm saying outright that on occasion you are terse and impertinent to the point of rudeness. And I should care about your opinion because... -- David W. Fentonhttp://www.bway.net/~dfenton David Fenton Associateshttp://www.bway.net/~dfassoc ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT: Apple eyes the Pentium M
And I should care about your opinion because... ... because I doubt I'm the only one who is offended by the comments. Simon Troup Digital Media Art ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT: Apple eyes the Pentium M
On Jun 10, 2005, at 7:13 PM, Simon Troup wrote: And I should care about your opinion because... ... because I doubt I'm the only one who is offended by the comments. Simon Troup Digital Media Art _ You are not. Chuck Chuck Israels 230 North Garden Terrace Bellingham, WA 98225-5836 phone (360) 671-3402 fax (360) 676-6055 www.chuckisraels.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT: Apple eyes the Pentium M
On Jun 10, 2005, at 9:28 PM, Chuck Israels wrote: On Jun 10, 2005, at 7:13 PM, Simon Troup wrote: ... because I doubt I'm the only one who is offended by the comments. Simon Troup Digital Media Art You are not. Chuck Chuck Israels Indeed, it was surprising to read ass in that context. It's nice to be on a list that doesn't resemble Usenet... steve ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT: Apple eyes the Pentium M
(N.B. -- these are developer models only, shipping MacIntels will not use the P4): Yup...I think this is true...I think the Pentium 4 and most probably Pentium M are for Beta purposes only...the M may show up in early MacIntel boxes but ultimately there will be better/faster chips that are currently in development used in the Apple boxes. Again, speculation on my part... http://www.xlr8yourmac.com/ First, the thing is fast. Native apps readily beat a single 2.7 G5, and sometimes beat duals. Really. See...this is the beauty of the Mac OSX operating system...put the Mac OS on a slower machine/chip and it will run faster than Windows on that same machine/chipput it on a faster Intel chip and it will scream compared to windows! [...] They run Windows fine. All the chipset is standard Intel stuff, so you can download drivers and run XP on the box. I'm not sure how this will play out...does Apple allow windows to run natively on their boxes or do they close the loopholes and allow only OS X (or whatever the next gen of the OS turns out to be) to run on the new boxes even though they are using Intel chips...I'm currently running Virtual PC on my laptop...I'm wondering how it would be if I could just partition and then run both OS's natively on one box. Again, this could totally change the market share game...what do you guys think?? I'm curious to hear how my fellow Finale listers look at this... I'm not clear on how this could play out... [...] Rosetta is amazing. (see earlier post on limitations of the Rosetta emulator - it's a G3 emulator basically - will not run Altivec code, etc. and performance isn't going to be as good as native code, but most Mac apps will run on a G3.-Mike) The tests I've run, both app tests and benchmarks, peg it at between a dual 800 MHz G4 and and a dual 2 G5 depending on what you are doing. (I mentioned to him the limitations of Rosetta (posted below)-Mike) It's true Rosetta does not support Altivec, but most apps run on a G3, right? Rosetta tells PPC apps that it is a G3. Apps should fall back to their G3 code tree. Everyone I tested did. The UI tests in Xbench exceed a dual 2.7 by a large margin. (other specific tests are much lower than a G5 per Xbench site results.-Mike) I've been talking to and watching a lot of devs. There are a lot of apps from big names running in the Compatibility lab already. Some people face more pain, sure, but Jobs wasn't kidding when he said that this transition would be less painful than OS 9 to OS X or 68K to PPC. Jobs is a genius...the developers that have rested on laurels and haven't kept up will lose out...those that have kept up will inherit market sharelisten up Coda! Finale will do more than any other notation program out there...I hope the developers will step up for all our sakes! [...] Also, all the cell people and the AMD people need to be quiet. Apple evaluated both. AMD has the same, if not worse, supply problems as IBM. Their roadmap is fine, but the production capacity is not. AMD is out of the picture IMHO at least as far as processor chips go. My hunch is that Apple had to make a deal with Intel that excluded AMD to a huge degree to get them to create something proprietary for Apple. No word yet from anyone about MIDI issues, AFAIK. Midi is a small part of this...I don't think it will be a problem. They have had the OMS develeper(s) on board for a long time...it is covered again IMHO. Thank you for this Darcyvery informative! Best, K ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT: Apple eyes the Pentium M
Darcy James Argue wrote: An anonymous developer speaks about the Developer Kit MacIntels (N.B. -- these are developer models only, shipping MacIntels will not use the P4): http://www.xlr8yourmac.com/ First, the thing is fast. Native apps readily beat a single 2.7 G5, and sometimes beat duals. Really. [...] They run Windows fine. All the chipset is standard Intel stuff, so you can download drivers and run XP on the box. [...] Rosetta is amazing. (see earlier post on limitations of the Rosetta emulator - it's a G3 emulator basically - will not run Altivec code, etc. and performance isn't going to be as good as native code, but most Mac apps will run on a G3.-Mike) The tests I've run, both app tests and benchmarks, peg it at between a dual 800 MHz G4 and and a dual 2 G5 depending on what you are doing. (I mentioned to him the limitations of Rosetta (posted below)-Mike) It's true Rosetta does not support Altivec, but most apps run on a G3, right? Rosetta tells PPC apps that it is a G3. Apps should fall back to their G3 code tree. Everyone I tested did. The UI tests in Xbench exceed a dual 2.7 by a large margin. (other specific tests are much lower than a G5 per Xbench site results.-Mike) I've been talking to and watching a lot of devs. There are a lot of apps from big names running in the Compatibility lab already. Some people face more pain, sure, but Jobs wasn't kidding when he said that this transition would be less painful than OS 9 to OS X or 68K to PPC. [...] Also, all the cell people and the AMD people need to be quiet. Apple evaluated both. AMD has the same, if not worse, supply problems as IBM. Their roadmap is fine, but the production capacity is not. No word yet from anyone about MIDI issues, AFAIK. If they're really Pentiums, and if they really run Windows with no problems, there won't be any problem with MIDI issues. At least not on the hardware side of things -- how Apple programs its OSX for the new chips is an entirely different matter. -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT: Apple eyes the Pentium M
On 09 Jun 2005, at 5:03 AM, dhbailey wrote: If they're really Pentiums, and if they really run Windows with no problems, there won't be any problem with MIDI issues. At least not on the hardware side of things -- how Apple programs its OSX for the new chips is an entirely different matter. Well, yeah. Nobody ever suggested that the MacIntels wouldn't be able to run MIDI _at all_. Of course they will support MIDI when running native MacIntel apps, and MIDI-using Apple apps (like GarageBand) are probably already ready to go in universal binary (i.e., PPC+MacIntel) versions. Obviously, Apple would never ship a computer that didn't support MIDI _at all_. But the question on everyone's mind is whether MacIntels will support MIDI when running _older_ apps (like, ferinstance, Finale 2005) in emulation, AKA Rosetta. If you fire up Fin2005 (or any other PPC app) on a MacIntel, will MIDI work? If not, that could be a really serious problem, especially if takes Coda as long to port to MacIntel as did for them to port to OS X. A related question is whether Rosetta will support MIDI/Audio interfaces designed for PowerPC. LIke, for example, the FireWire Audiophile I'm using. - Darcy - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brooklyn, NY ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT: Apple eyes the Pentium M
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: See...this is the beauty of the Mac OSX operating system...put the Mac OS on a slower machine/chip and it will run faster than Windows on that same machine/chipput it on a faster Intel chip and it will scream compared to windows! Please include the benchmarks you're reffering to and the test conditions. Best regards, Jari Williamsson ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT: Apple eyes the Pentium M
On 8 Jun 2005 at 23:10, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://www.xlr8yourmac.com/ First, the thing is fast. Native apps readily beat a single 2.7 G5, and sometimes beat duals. Really. See...this is the beauty of the Mac OSX operating system...put the Mac OS on a slower machine/chip and it will run faster than Windows on that same machine/chipput it on a faster Intel chip and it will scream compared to windows! Er, what? What is your basis for any comparison to Windows based on the information quoted from www.xler8yourmac.com? And has there been any benchmarking comparing OS X Finale to Windows Finale? I'm not a Mac user, but it seems to me that from what I've heard y'all complaining about, Windows is going to win hands down. [...] They run Windows fine. All the chipset is standard Intel stuff, so you can download drivers and run XP on the box. I'm not sure how this will play out...does Apple allow windows to run natively on their boxes or do they close the loopholes and allow only OS X . . . Folks don't seem to be paying attention to the things posted on this list, because I posted a couple of days ago a quote from an Apple spokesman that answers this question: http://news.com.com/2100-7341_3-5733756.html After Jobs' presentation, Apple Senior Vice President Phil Schiller addressed the issue of running Windows on Macs, saying there are no plans to sell or support Windows on an Intel-based Mac. That doesn't preclude someone from running it on a Mac. They probably will, he said. We won't do anything to preclude that. However, Schiller said the company does not plan to let people run Mac OS X on other computer makers' hardware. We will not allow running Mac OS X on anything other than an Apple Mac, he said. We won't do anything to preclude that seems pretty definitive to me. -- David W. Fentonhttp://www.bway.net/~dfenton David Fenton Associateshttp://www.bway.net/~dfassoc ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT: Apple eyes the Pentium M
When Apple goes Intel, will Macs become targets for the latest viruses like our PC friends, or will a Mac still be a Mac? ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT: Apple eyes the Pentium M
I've always been told that the reason Macs don't get viruses is that the vastly lower numbers of Mac users doesn't attract the miscreants who write the viruses, not because of any inherent immunity. Have I been misinformed? Ken At 11:27 AM 6/9/2005, you wrote: When Apple goes Intel, will Macs become targets for the latest viruses like our PC friends, or will a Mac still be a Mac? ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT: Apple eyes the Pentium M
At 6/9/2005 02:27 PM, Eden - Lawrence D. wrote: When Apple goes Intel, will Macs become targets for the latest viruses like our PC friends, or will a Mac still be a Mac? Depends on the OS. But I recently read that Linux is becoming more common. When that happens, they will; become a prime target. Phil Daley AutoDesk http://www.conknet.com/~p_daley ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT: Apple eyes the Pentium M
On 09 Jun 2005, at 2:34 PM, Ken Durling wrote: I've always been told that the reason Macs don't get viruses is that the vastly lower numbers of Mac users doesn't attract the miscreants who write the viruses, not because of any inherent immunity. Have I been misinformed? There's certainly some truth to the low market share = no viruses argument, but it's also true that OS X is fundamentally more secure than Windows. Microsoft's insistence on making Internet Explorer an integral part of the OS also makes it particularly vulnerable to malware exploits. The first thing anyone tells you on the PC if you want to avoid malware is, Don't use IE. (Of course, that's also good advice even if you just want a half-decent web browsing experience.) It's also true that Mac users tend to be more positively disposed towards Apple than Windows users are towards MS. (How's _that_ for an understatement?) So I think there are fewer Mac users who are out to get Apple, the way some Windows malware authors seem to be trying to punish Microsoft. - Darcy - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brooklyn, NY ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT: Apple eyes the Pentium M
You have been misinformed. http://macdailynews.com/index.php/weblog/comments/5534/ http://macdailynews.com/index.php/weblog/comments/5393/ http://macdailynews.com/index.php/weblog/comments/5371/ Ken Durling wrote: I've always been told that the reason Macs don't get viruses is that the vastly lower numbers of Mac users doesn't attract the miscreants who write the viruses, not because of any inherent immunity. Have I been misinformed? Ken ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT: Apple eyes the Pentium M
On 9 Jun 2005 at 14:27, Eden - Lawrence D. wrote: When Apple goes Intel, will Macs become targets for the latest viruses like our PC friends, or will a Mac still be a Mac? Mac will still be the Mac. Hardware is completely irrelevant to the propagation of viruses, which is entirely a software/OS security issue. And, BTW, the Mac is potentially just as vulnerable to socially engineered exploits, but the damage such exploits could do is less in a Mac running in the default security configuration than it is for Windows in its default security configuration. But in both with the best security configuration, the risk is exactly the same for socially-engineered exploits, because the end user executes the nefarious code. This points out that email clients have been badly designed for a very long time. Instead of handing off executable content to the OS, attachments should be executed in a sandbox mode, restricted from the OS. This is true for email clients on Windows, Mac and Linux. -- David W. Fentonhttp://www.bway.net/~dfenton David Fenton Associateshttp://www.bway.net/~dfassoc ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT: Apple eyes the Pentium M
Eden - Lawrence D. wrote: When Apple goes Intel, will Macs become targets for the latest viruses like our PC friends, or will a Mac still be a Mac? Since the viruses attack the users of a particular OS (windows users get viruses, Mac users don't) I don't see any reason that Mac users will be any more vulnerable. But with all the Mac bragging about being virus free, I'm really surprised some virus-writer hasn't written one just to stop the bragging. That has been one of the bonuses of the mac market share being so small. BUT, be forewarned, that some viruses reformat the hard disk, so if you make a Mac/Windows machine you may well invite trouble. -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT: Apple eyes the Pentium M
On 9 Jun 2005 at 11:44, Eric Dannewitz wrote: You have been misinformed. http://macdailynews.com/index.php/weblog/comments/5534/ This article does a real disservice to Mac users with this attitude: Can you imagine a world where (today) you can click on anything and never worry about malicious intent? There is no technical or security reason why the most common kinds of exploits seen on Windows computers could not do significant damage on the Mac. This is because: 1. the vast majority of exploits today on Windows do not accidentally infect a computer -- they infect it when a user chooses to execute content that they shouldn't, either by being tricked by a socially engineered email message (that masquerades as, say, a notice from your ISP), or by deceptively seeking permission to be installed in your web browser (spyware in IE -- BTW, nobody in their right mind should be using IE). 2. the damage any such exploits can do is dependent on the user permissions with which those exploits execute. If run with user-level permissions, the ability to do real damage is vastly reduced, limited only to the file-space and system configuration options that a restricted user has access to. The only difference between Mac and Windows is that the default security settings for the Mac are far more sensibly chosen. On the Mac, you end up running with user-level security if you follow the default suggestions for the OS setup. On Windows, you end up (quite wrongly, by any sensible idea of security) running as an administrator. However, if you *don't* accept the defaults on Windows, and maintain an adminstrative logon for administrative tasks, but use a regular daily user logon with only user-level rights, you're running in nearly the same security configuration on both platforms from the standpoint of the most common Windows exploits. There are some technical differences about code execution that are minor differences. There are also differences in what kind of system configuration parameters can be changed. I don't know the Mac details, but the most common weakness on Windows is the plethora of user-level methods for automatically launching programs at startup (the user's RUN key in the registry; the Startup group, and so forth). My guess is that there is less exposure on OS X, but that there are still openings for an exploit to permanently set itself up to automatically execute with each reboot. http://macdailynews.com/index.php/weblog/comments/5393/ This article (which is actually a summary of this: http://www.digitmag.co.uk/features/index.cfm?FeatureID=1239) contradicts the gist of the previous article, and seems quite sensible to me, though I'd quibble with the conclusion about spyware. They can only reach the conclusion about the safety of the Mac from spyware by defining spyware much more narrowly than is the case on the Windows side. http://macdailynews.com/index.php/weblog/comments/5371/ This one is difficult to evaluate. It is a summary of a press release that is no longer on the original site. I'm no fan of Symantec. I think they (and all the other AV vendors) are shysters who produce products that really don't do anything terribly useful -- they are still using pattern matching to identify viruses, when they should instead be using *behavior*. It's like the difference between spam filtering based on pattern matching and Bayesian spam filtering. The latter works so much better because it's not hard-wired to specific sequences of bytes, but instead to general characteristics of items identified as being spam. Of course, if AV software used the same kinds of methods (they claim to have heuristic engines, but they don't seem to do anything useful), there would be no need for frequent downloads of virus updates, and no need for subscriptions. So, it's not in the interest of the AV companies to make software that really kills viruses -- it's in their interest to maintain the reactive mode of AV protection, since in that mode, one is always defending against the newest exploits. Ken Durling wrote: I've always been told that the reason Macs don't get viruses is that the vastly lower numbers of Mac users doesn't attract the miscreants who write the viruses, not because of any inherent immunity. Have I been misinformed? You have, in fact, *not* been misinformed. But the reason is not entirely due to smaller market share. It is also due to the fact that propagating an OS X virus would be harder than propagating a Windows virus. So, those who are creating these viruses go after the low-hanging fruit. Keep in mind that most of the activity in the so-called virus area these days is with Trojans and with bot-nets that spammers and others use as free networks whose services they sell. OS X in its default configuration makes that much harder than Windows in its default configuration, and because most people don't change the
[Finale] OT: Apple eyes the Pentium M
Analysis: Apple eyes the Pentium M The first Apple systems with Intel inside will use the Pentium M chip, sources say News Story by Tom Krazit JUNE 08, 2005 (IDG NEWS SERVICE) - A processor alliance between Intel Corp. and Apple Computer Inc. would have seemed unthinkable five years ago, when Apple CEO Steve Jobs first began setting up the company's just in case plan for moving to Intel chips if its relationship with IBM and Freescale Semiconductor Inc. faltered. With IBM and Freescale moving in different directions from Apple, the backup plan moved front and center this week (see story). Jobs ended days of speculation during a speech at the company's Worldwide Developer 2005 conference in San Francisco on Monday, confirming that Apple will use Intel processors in its Macintosh computers starting next year. This will require software developers to port their applications away from IBM and Freescale's PowerPC architecture to Intel's x86 architecture, a significant undertaking for some. The first Apple systems in 2006 will use Intel's Pentium M processor, according to sources familiar with the companies' plans. The Pentium M uses the same x86 architecture as the Pentium 4 but consumes far less power. Its design philosophy is expected to be the model for Intel's future processors. Apple officials did not return repeated calls for comment, and an Intel spokesman declined to comment on Apple's product decisions. Jobs justified the move away from the PowerPC to Intel's x86 architecture largely on Intel's ability to deliver a high-performance per-watt ratio compared with IBM's future chips. This would tend to favor the Pentium M, which is just as powerful as high-end Pentium 4 processors yet uses far less power, Intel executives have said. Industry analysts agreed that the Pentium M product Intel plans to launch in early 2006, the dual-core Yonah processor, could be an industry leader in performance per watt at that point. IBM's PowerPC 970FX chip, which Apple called the G5, simply doesn't lend itself to PC designs that require low power consumption, such as notebooks and small form-factor desktops, Jobs said. Apple was also frustrated by IBM's inability to supply it with sufficient processors last year as the chip maker struggled with yield problems while getting its new manufacturing facility in East Fishkill, N.Y., up and running. But Apple accounted for only about 2% of IBM's chip wafer production in East Fishkill, according to industry sources, and IBM is moving away from making chips for the PC market in favor of gaming consoles and high-end servers. An IBM spokesman declined to comment on the nature of his company's relationship with Apple, but the company released a statement indicating that it probably won't miss Apple's business. IBM is aggressively moving the Power Architecture beyond the PC, as shown by our recent successes with the next-generation gaming systems announced by Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo. ... IBM is focused on the highest value opportunities in each marketplace, and our direction with the Power Architecture is consistent with that strategy, the company said. Console makers like Sony Computer Entertainment Inc., Microsoft Corp. and Nintendo Co. will sell tens of millions of units combined over the next couple of years, and it's likely that IBM would rather focus its attention on the deals it has struck with those three companies, as opposed to taking on the engineering challenge of making a low-power G5 processor to suit Apple's small market share. Freescale, Apple's other PowerPC chip supplier, introduced a dual-core PowerPC chip last year that uses two G4 cores. The G4 processor currently ships with Apple's Mac mini, PowerBook, iBook and eMac products. This chip might have been able to compete with Intel's Yonah and would have staved off the painful software transitions for at least another year, said Nathan Brookwood, principal analyst with Insight 64 in Saratoga, California. But Freescale is primarily concerned with the embedded and mobile phone markets and is not prepared to make the same investments in future PC chip design as Intel is guaranteed to do, said Dean McCarron, principal analyst at Mercury Research Inc. in Cave Creek, Ariz. Therefore, Apple had little choice but to make the historic move to standard PC chips, he said. One chip company on the outside looking in is Advanced Micro Devices Inc. Several industry analysts said they felt that if Apple was ever going to move to x86 chips, it might have found AMD a more suitable partner, given the underdog status of both companies and the competitiveness of AMD's Opteron and Athlon 64 processors. Apple and AMD have indeed talked about a relationship at certain points in their histories and have worked together as members of the Hypertransport Consortium, said Drew Prairie, an AMD spokesman. However, Prairie was not able to comment on any recent
Re: [Finale] OT: Apple eyes the Pentium M
On 08 Jun 2005, at 1:58 PM, Phil Daley wrote: One chip company on the outside looking in is Advanced Micro Devices Inc. Several industry analysts said they felt that if Apple was ever going to move to x86 chips, it might have found AMD a more suitable partner, given the underdog status of both companies and the competitiveness of AMD's Opteron and Athlon 64 processors. Apple and AMD have indeed talked about a relationship at certain points in their histories and have worked together as members of the Hypertransport Consortium, said Drew Prairie, an AMD spokesman. However, Prairie was not able to comment on any recent talks between AMD and Apple. I think the main reason Apple didn't go with AMD because that might easily have meant a continuation of the yield/supply problems that plagued IBM and Motorola/Freescale. AMD is struggling to keep up with demand for their processors as it is. Whereas if there's one thing Intel is good at, it's cranking out bajillions of chips. - Darcy - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brooklyn, NY ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT: Apple eyes the Pentium M
Darcy James Argue / 2005/06/08 / 02:09 PM wrote: I think the main reason Apple didn't go with AMD because that might easily have meant a continuation of the yield/supply problems that plagued IBM and Motorola/Freescale. And/or Apple is pissed with AMD Hypertunnel controller that causes packet dropouts on PCIX machines which they even didn't try fixing. My G5 Dual 2.5GHz has one, and I am certainly upset about it. -- - Hiro Hiroaki Honshuku, A-NO-NE Music, Boston, MA http://a-no-ne.com http://anonemusic.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT: Apple eyes the Pentium M
The first Apple systems in 2006 will use Intel's Pentium M processor, according to sources familiar with the companies' plans. The Pentium M uses the same x86 architecture as the Pentium 4 but consumes far less power. Its design philosophy is expected to be the model for Intel's future processors. Apple officials did not return repeated calls for comment, and an Intel spokesman declined to comment on Apple's product decisions. Jobs justified the move away from the PowerPC to Intel's x86 architecture largely on Intel's ability to deliver a high-performance per-watt ratio compared with IBM's future chips. This would tend to favor the Pentium M, which is just as powerful as high-end Pentium 4 processors yet uses far less power, Intel executives have said. Industry analysts agreed that the Pentium M product Intel plans to launch in early 2006, the dual-core Yonah processor, could be an industry leader in performance per watt at that point. Thank you for this Phil! This is making more and more sense...i.e. less power consumption with these chips = runs cooler = makes it possible to make smaller, more powerful machines. Apple hasn't been able to get a G5 processor into the mini and their notebook computers because they can't keep them cool and small at the same time. Looks like a switch to these chips may make a G5 powerbook possible. And that would be great! Maybe we will see some new powerbooks at MacWorld San Francisco! in January! Thanks again for this! -K ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT: Apple eyes the Pentium M
[EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb: Looks like a switch to these chips may make a G5 powerbook possible. And that would be great! Except, they wouldn't be G5s... Maybe we will see some new powerbooks at MacWorld San Francisco! in January! Hardly. At least not with Intel chips. Johannes -- http://www.musikmanufaktur.com http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT: Apple eyes the Pentium M
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Looks like a switch to these chips may make a G5 powerbook possible. And that would be great! No, it would make a Pentium M notebook possible. Best regards, Jari Williamsson ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT: Apple eyes the Pentium M
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Looks like a switch to these chips may make a G5 powerbook possible. And that would be great! No, it would make a Pentium M notebook possible. O.K...I should have said G5 powerbooks. The point of my post was that this is a speed/cooling barrier that Apple has been trying to get past as far as notebooks and smaller machines go...now these chips may allow them to do that. Not sure what they will end up being called or if they will or won't be named after the chip they are running on...that is a marketing issue. Intel has other chips they are rolling out that are faster than the Pentium M. So only time will tell which chip will end up in the new machines...Pentium M...Yonah...Itanium... Best, -K ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT: Apple eyes the Pentium M
Well, technically G5 is only a marketing name, anyway. The actual name of the chip is IBM PPC 970, and it doesn't even share the same lineage as Moto/Freescale's G4 series. Prior to the Intel announcement, there was some speculation that Apple would use a next-gen 64-bit dual-core chip from Freescale in their notebooks, and call it a G5 even though it was completely different from the PPC 970. Who knows what Apple will call the MacIntel chips? Theoretically, they could even call them G6 -- I think that's _extremely_ unlikely, but they own the name so there's no _technical_ reason why they couldn't just continue with the G series. (Of course, that would be terrible marketing, so realistically it won't happen.) On the other hand, they will probably want to avoid the word Pentium if at all possible. I suppose it depends what arrangement they've worked out with Intel. Steve wouldn't have partnered with them if they hadn't been willing to make exceptions to their usual marketing practices -- for instance, I doubt we'll be seeing Macs badged with the Intel Inside logo, or be hearing the Intel jingle at the end of Apple commercials. - Darcy - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brooklyn, NY On 08 Jun 2005, at 7:17 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Looks like a switch to these chips may make a G5 powerbook possible. And that would be great! No, it would make a Pentium M notebook possible. O.K...I should have said G5 powerbooks. The point of my post was that this is a speed/cooling barrier that Apple has been trying to get past as far as notebooks and smaller machines go...now these chips may allow them to do that. Not sure what they will end up being called or if they will or won't be named after the chip they are running on...that is a marketing issue. Intel has other chips they are rolling out that are faster than the Pentium M. So only time will tell which chip will end up in the new machines...Pentium M...Yonah...Itanium... Best, -K ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT: Apple eyes the Pentium M
An anonymous developer speaks about the Developer Kit MacIntels (N.B. -- these are developer models only, shipping MacIntels will not use the P4): http://www.xlr8yourmac.com/ First, the thing is fast. Native apps readily beat a single 2.7 G5, and sometimes beat duals. Really. [...] They run Windows fine. All the chipset is standard Intel stuff, so you can download drivers and run XP on the box. [...] Rosetta is amazing. (see earlier post on limitations of the Rosetta emulator - it's a G3 emulator basically - will not run Altivec code, etc. and performance isn't going to be as good as native code, but most Mac apps will run on a G3.-Mike) The tests I've run, both app tests and benchmarks, peg it at between a dual 800 MHz G4 and and a dual 2 G5 depending on what you are doing. (I mentioned to him the limitations of Rosetta (posted below)-Mike) It's true Rosetta does not support Altivec, but most apps run on a G3, right? Rosetta tells PPC apps that it is a G3. Apps should fall back to their G3 code tree. Everyone I tested did. The UI tests in Xbench exceed a dual 2.7 by a large margin. (other specific tests are much lower than a G5 per Xbench site results.-Mike) I've been talking to and watching a lot of devs. There are a lot of apps from big names running in the Compatibility lab already. Some people face more pain, sure, but Jobs wasn't kidding when he said that this transition would be less painful than OS 9 to OS X or 68K to PPC. [...] Also, all the cell people and the AMD people need to be quiet. Apple evaluated both. AMD has the same, if not worse, supply problems as IBM. Their roadmap is fine, but the production capacity is not. No word yet from anyone about MIDI issues, AFAIK. - Darcy - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brooklyn, NY ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT: Apple eyes the Pentium M
On the other hand, they will probably want to avoid the word Pentium if at all possible. I suppose it depends what arrangement they've worked out with Intel. Steve wouldn't have partnered with them if they hadn't been willing to make exceptions to their usual marketing practices -- for instance, I doubt we'll be seeing Macs badged with the Intel Inside logo, or be hearing the Intel jingle at the end of Apple commercials. Bingo Darcy! I'm in complete agreement with you! Pentium is tied too closely to Windows' machines...I think you are right on the money with this! -K ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
