Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Hardware - Troubleshooting and Discussion > Mac Desktops > Will Intel PowerMacs be dual processors?

Will Intel PowerMacs be dual processors?
Thread Tools
hondo
Junior Member
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: SW Ohio, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 7, 2005, 07:54 PM
 
Today I received a quote from Apple for a dual 2.3 Ghz powermac and 23" display, I love the performance and the multi-tasking ability of the dual processors. (I will probably go ahead and purchase this as it will be paid for by work) What I was wondering, however, is that when Apple begins to sell Intel powered Macs, will they offer a dual processor version. I believe they will due to OS X and its ability to harness both processor's. What do you think?
     
retroneo
Junior Member
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 7, 2005, 07:58 PM
 
Yes, the new Pentium D processors are Dual-Core (2 processors on one piece of silicon!), plus next years Pentium M processors for laptops are dual-core as well!

If you love the multitasking ability, the the hyperthreading feature of the Pentium is supported in Mac OS X, which on a dual core processor, will show as 4 processors!

Originally Posted by hondo
Today I received a quote from Apple for a dual 2.3 Ghz powermac and 23" display, I love the performance and the multi-tasking ability of the dual processors. (I will probably go ahead and purchase this as it will be paid for by work) What I was wondering, however, is that when Apple begins to sell Intel powered Macs, will they offer a dual processor version. I believe they will due to OS X and its ability to harness both processor's. What do you think?
     
hondo  (op)
Junior Member
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: SW Ohio, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 7, 2005, 08:12 PM
 
This is awesome and great news for OS X. I had a dual 1 Ghz G4 and sold it and have been running on a Alum Powerbook 15" with 1 Ghz. I miss that extra processor but it was a trade off for portability. I realize and understand some of the negative feelings about this move but the more that I have read about this and begin to understand, I feel it was a smart move. Everytime I wonder about a possible drawback, I learn that there is a big silver lining. (Like the Pentium D and hyperthreading) My work is strictly Dell boxes and they buy Macs for me for video work. What better justification for me if they could run MS XP as well or on a seperate partition. Am I missing something here?
     
retroneo
Junior Member
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 7, 2005, 08:17 PM
 
Sure, Apple has announced you can install Windows on the new Macs...
     
Kristoff
Mac Elite
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: in front of the keyboard
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 7, 2005, 08:26 PM
 
Yah, just what everyone needs, a new crappy hardware setup to run an old crappy OS.

Sad day, sad day.
signatures are a waste of bandwidth
especially ones with political tripe in them.
     
Tyre MacAdmin
Mac Elite
Join Date: Feb 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 7, 2005, 08:59 PM
 
Originally Posted by retroneo
Sure, Apple has announced you can install Windows on the new Macs...
No kidding? Where?
     
Catfish_Man
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 7, 2005, 10:05 PM
 
Originally Posted by Tyler McAdams
No kidding? Where?
In the keynote.

Kristoff: what's this new crappy hardware? An Apple box with any other processor still sounds like an Apple box to me (unless it's like a 386 or something).
     
hondo  (op)
Junior Member
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: SW Ohio, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 7, 2005, 10:06 PM
 
Originally Posted by Kristoff
Yah, just what everyone needs, a new crappy hardware setup to run an old crappy OS.

Sad day, sad day.
Like I said I was not ecstatic at first about this decision either. Since it is the choice, however, I hope that it is Apple preparing for future that has driven this decision. Regardless, I enjoy using my Mac and have since my first IIc. I can't help it that most of the world (like my work) works in the Windows world. I'd rather not and try to avoid it whenever possible. If a future Mac has the possibility of running Windows (whether it ever does) and that makes everyone happy, that's good for me. Hopefully, those at my work get a chance to see OS X and see why we love it.
     
Scooterboy
Senior User
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Minneapolis for now
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 7, 2005, 10:09 PM
 
Phil Schiller said that Apple will not sell or support Windows on the Intel Macs, but they will not preclude anyone from doing it. OSX, XP, Longhorn all on one machine? Cool! Of course, then why make Mac versions of Windows apps when the user can be told to just boot Windows to run it?
Scooters are more fun than computers and only slightly more frustrating
     
Scooterboy
Senior User
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Minneapolis for now
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 7, 2005, 10:10 PM
 
Phil Schiller said that Apple will not sell or support Windows on the Intel Macs, but they will not preclude anyone from doing it themselves. OSX, XP, Longhorn all on one machine? Cool! Of course, then why make Mac versions of Windows apps when the user can be told to just boot Windows to run it?
Scooters are more fun than computers and only slightly more frustrating
     
hondo  (op)
Junior Member
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: SW Ohio, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 7, 2005, 10:16 PM
 
Originally Posted by Scooterboy
Of course, then why make Mac versions of Windows apps when the user can be told to just boot Windows to run it?
Good point. I personally, however, would rather never boot into Windows if I can help it.
     
Euphrates
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: New Jersey, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 7, 2005, 10:18 PM
 
Originally Posted by Scooterboy
Phil Schiller said that Apple will not sell or support Windows on the Intel Macs, but they will not preclude anyone from doing it themselves. OSX, XP, Longhorn all on one machine? Cool! Of course, then why make Mac versions of Windows apps when the user can be told to just boot Windows to run it?
Because Windows doesn't come on the Intel Macs. Companies are not going to assume that every Mac user will pay 150+ dollars (how much does windows cost, anyway?) just so they can run applications. What's the point in buying a Mac in the first place if the user has to shut down Mac OS X when non-Apple programs are needed?
     
JoshuaZ
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Yamanashi, Japan
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 7, 2005, 10:53 PM
 
I imagine that apple will disable Windows install on Macs. I'm sure someone will find out how, but I look forward to running VPC or WINE within OS X.
     
G5man
Forum Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 7, 2005, 11:08 PM
 
but can you install Mac on Windows ? that is the question and if Apple's market share beats the pee cee world virus writers will target OS X
     
tooki
Admin Emeritus
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Zurich, Switzerland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 8, 2005, 02:32 AM
 
Originally Posted by Catfish_Man
In the keynote.
It might behoove you to actually watch the keynote before declaring what was said in it.

Apple did not say anything about Windows compatibility AT ALL during the keynote. AFTER the keynote, Phil Schiller said that Apple will not support Windows, but will not take any steps to prevent it from being run.

tooki
     
osxpinot
Senior User
Join Date: Sep 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 8, 2005, 03:06 AM
 
Originally Posted by Scooterboy
Of course, then why make Mac versions of Windows apps when the user can be told to just boot Windows to run it?
So you use Macs for their hardware superiority and not for the stability of the OS? If so, your opinion is validated. Otherwise, it is fallacious.
     
andreas_g4
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: adequate, thanks.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 8, 2005, 03:07 AM
 
Originally Posted by G5man
but can you install Mac on Windows ? that is the question and if Apple's market share beats the pee cee world virus writers will target OS X
     
andreas_g4
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: adequate, thanks.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 8, 2005, 03:09 AM
 
Originally Posted by tooki
It might behoove you to actually watch the keynote before declaring what was said in it.

Apple did not say anything about Windows compatibility AT ALL during the keynote. AFTER the keynote, Phil Schiller said that Apple will not support Windows, but will not take any steps to prevent it from being run.

tooki
I think it was meant ironic. Don't know.
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 8, 2005, 04:00 AM
 
Having two cores is good. Having them on piece of silicon instead of two is cheaper (except when AMD is running out of fab capacity...) and can be faster, but doesn't really matter much otherwise. I imagine we'll see 2x2 in the top of the line as well, but maybe not as far down the line as now.

Note, however, that the P4 or Pentium D is not likely to be used in any Mac except the developer kits. Intel has killed them and the entire Netburst architechture. The future is the Pentium M and its derivatives - in desktops as well, as dual and quad cores. The Pentium D is just a placeholder until they get here.
     
Steve's Sanity
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: In Apple's executive dumpster
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 8, 2005, 05:51 AM
 
Originally Posted by retroneo
Sure, Apple has announced you can install Windows on the new Macs...
Yep you can run Windoze on Mactels. It will be nice for developers for they won't have to make software for Mac OS X, you can just boot up Windoze .
     
Catfish_Man
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 8, 2005, 06:46 AM
 
Originally Posted by andreas_g4
I think it was meant ironic. Don't know.
Actually no, I just messed up
     
Maflynn
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Boston
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 8, 2005, 07:06 AM
 
Originally Posted by Scooterboy
Phil Schiller said... course, then why make Mac versions of Windows apps when the user can be told to just boot Windows to run it?
That in some ways helped kill OS/2 for IBM. Don't get me wrong IBM shot themselves in the foot so many times its not funny but one major issue was porting applications over and what they saw as a strong of genius hurt them greatly. Seemless windows intergration - the ability to run windows programs side by side with os/2 programs. There was no incentive for companies to port their apps over at that stage.

I'm concerned that the closeness of the hardware, i.e., both running intel CPUs, that we won't see too much ambition to support two different Operating Systems.

Mike
     
misc
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 8, 2005, 12:51 PM
 
IBM makes (did make) a chip for Apple copmputers. We don't know that Intel won't be doing the same thing. It could be completely different from any chip that windows can run on. Don't jump the gun here.

"And after we are through, ten years in making it to be the most of glorious debuts."
     
Maflynn
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Boston
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 8, 2005, 01:19 PM
 
Originally Posted by misc
IBM makes (did make) a chip for Apple copmputers. We don't know that Intel won't be doing the same thing. It could be completely different from any chip that windows can run on. Don't jump the gun here.
I think its a little safe to assume that it will be a pentium chip. Think about it. The R&D, and fabrication needed to bring a cpu to fruitation is large and expensive ordeal. There's no way Intel is going to develop a unique and specific cpu for apple. If they did, Apple would be in the same boat as with Moto and ibm where's the profit incentive to intel on this? If however they wanted a pentium (maybe even with some apple specific tweaks) then that would be different.

Regards
Mike
     
gururafiki
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Good question...
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 8, 2005, 01:48 PM
 
I thought Pentium's could not be dual processor. Can the Pentium M? Dual Processor and each processor is Dual Core, with hyperthreading...sounds fun.
     
rotuts
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jan 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 8, 2005, 01:54 PM
 
I know nothing about Intel chips, what they have and where they are gonig. does anyone have a ref that is neutral about this chips?

also a ref about the fact that intel chips have a hardware number that can be read by software that then may tell where the software is running? this question is not really about piracy, but about privacy.

neutral is the key word here. evey side has is rants. Im looknng for solid unbiased info in intel

thanks rotut
MacPro 2.66 dual 3GB RAM 1.5 TB HD's
24" + 21" Samsung flat panels
Miglia mini HD (Great!)
     
Luca Rescigno
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 8, 2005, 02:01 PM
 
I doubt Apple would ever replace a dual processing 2.7 GHz monster with a lame single processor Pentium 4, regardless of clock speed. Even the dual core versions aren't that great (though I expect if the PowerMacs get them, they will work some heavy software optimization for the dual cores into OS X). There are dual Xeons, which are true dual processor machines, but I think we'll just have to see what Intel pulls out in the next 1-2 years to really know what the next PowerMacs will use. Right now Intel doesn't have anything that would be a huge improvement over the G5.

"That's Mama Luigi to you, Mario!" *wheeze*
     
hondo  (op)
Junior Member
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: SW Ohio, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 8, 2005, 02:57 PM
 
Originally Posted by Luca Rescigno
I doubt Apple would ever replace a dual processing 2.7 GHz monster with a lame single processor Pentium 4, regardless of clock speed. Even the dual core versions aren't that great (though I expect if the PowerMacs get them, they will work some heavy software optimization for the dual cores into OS X). There are dual Xeons, which are true dual processor machines, but I think we'll just have to see what Intel pulls out in the next 1-2 years to really know what the next PowerMacs will use. Right now Intel doesn't have anything that would be a huge improvement over the G5.
I have to think you are right here. Steve has to know that this decision would be heavily scrutinized. (Whether or not he cares) I think that he would not want to make it look like they were taking a step backwards and must have something in the works with Intel that will placate the Mac base. He does like a lot of bravado and hopefully, when he announces the first Intel PowerMac, he will have something to justify his decision.
     
tooki
Admin Emeritus
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Zurich, Switzerland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 8, 2005, 03:12 PM
 
Originally Posted by Maflynn
That in some ways helped kill OS/2 for IBM.
No, what killed OS/2 is its inability to run Windows 95 apps. MS decided to not renew OS/2's license of Windows technology when Win95 came out, so OS/2 was left only being able to run OS/2, DOS, and Windows 3.1 apps. Note that it ran the latter better than a real Win 3.1 system could!

tooki
     
b11051973
Forum Regular
Join Date: Feb 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 8, 2005, 04:47 PM
 
Dual core chips are coming out now and multi-core chips are coming in the future. I don't see true dual processor computers being around much longer. The new Sony PS3 is going to have 7 cores on 1 chip and that comes out in about a year.

Then again, having dual, 7 core processors in one computer would be pretty kickass.
     
Catfish_Man
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 8, 2005, 05:55 PM
 
Originally Posted by gururafiki
I thought Pentium's could not be dual processor. Can the Pentium M? Dual Processor and each processor is Dual Core, with hyperthreading...sounds fun.
The limitation on multiprocessor Pentiums is an artificial one. The Xeon, which is essentially the same chip as the P4 with a few things tweaked, can be used in up to 8 processor configurations, iirc.
     
thereubster
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: New Zealand
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 8, 2005, 07:22 PM
 
Yep I have a Dual Processor Xeon with Hyperthreading at work. Win XP sees it as a 4 proc machine and man it slays mutlithreaded apps dead (mainly 3D graphics stuff), chewing through 4 files or thread at a time decreases renders by a factor of 3.5 to 4 (20mins down to 5-6 mins). I wouldn't be very suprised if Apple have a dual-core-dual-processor with hyperthreading monster in mind for the future Powermacintel's (8 processors). I can see that overcoming any issues with missing Altivec
Idiot... Slow down
     
rotuts
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jan 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 8, 2005, 07:50 PM
 
there:

would you explain hyperthreading to me or ref it? are you saying that this splits a single processor into two? ie two processors with hyperthreading = 4 tasks done at once?

don't apps have to know what to do? would apps that take a long time ( movie processing) know to do this based on OS or how the program that was to do the processing is writen?

thanks rotuts
MacPro 2.66 dual 3GB RAM 1.5 TB HD's
24" + 21" Samsung flat panels
Miglia mini HD (Great!)
     
osxisfun
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Internets
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 8, 2005, 08:13 PM
 
     
rotuts
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jan 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 8, 2005, 09:32 PM
 
Oxsi:

thanks for the ref. therefore dual core beats one processor with hyperthreading. OK. but what do you gain with dual core over dual processor?

this seems to be a hot topic now as we are expecting DC's in the next chip, and we seem to want two chips in top of the line.

BTW Im hoping for a ref also to the dif between Intels DC chips and AMD's the buzz is that AMD's are 'better'

how do I look at that? Apple went with Intel ( 'currently inferior DC') as AMD has manufacturing problems.

thanks rotuts
MacPro 2.66 dual 3GB RAM 1.5 TB HD's
24" + 21" Samsung flat panels
Miglia mini HD (Great!)
     
Catfish_Man
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 8, 2005, 09:45 PM
 
Originally Posted by rotuts
Oxsi:

thanks for the ref. therefore dual core beats one processor with hyperthreading. OK. but what do you gain with dual core over dual processor?

this seems to be a hot topic now as we are expecting DC's in the next chip, and we seem to want two chips in top of the line.

BTW Im hoping for a ref also to the dif between Intels DC chips and AMD's the buzz is that AMD's are 'better'

how do I look at that? Apple went with Intel ( 'currently inferior DC') as AMD has manufacturing problems.

thanks rotuts
Basically there are three ways to get more threads to run on a chip:

Hyperthreading/SMT: Just run more threads without adding any more execution resources.
Advantages: Cheap, doesn't take up much room.
Disadvantages: Doesn't gain as much performance as the other solutions. Can have performance issues if the OS doesn't know the difference between a "virtual" extra processor and a real one (OSX does, as of 10.4).

Dual Core: Add another core on the same piece of silicon.
Advantages: runs two threads at full speed, since there's two cores. Makes it very easy for the cores to communicate. Usually cheaper than dual processors.
Disadvantages: The cores typically share a connection to the rest of the computer.

Dual Processors: Pretty self-explanatory. Basically works just like dual cores, with a few minor differences.
Advantages: Often has a dedicated connection to the rest of the system for each processor
Disadvantages: Can be more expensive than dual cores, communication between processors is a bit slower since they're not on the same chunk of silicon.

Thankfully, all of these can in theory be combined
     
gururafiki
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Good question...
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 8, 2005, 11:35 PM
 
Originally Posted by Catfish_Man
Thankfully, all of these can in theory be combined
In theory? So it has not been done yet?
     
anamexis
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 9, 2005, 12:04 AM
 
Originally Posted by gururafiki
In theory? So it has not been done yet?
There have not been any (publicly displayed) combinations of SMT, dual-core, and dual-processors yet, to my knowledge.
     
Luca Rescigno
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 9, 2005, 12:31 AM
 
Would be amazing though. Two processors, each a dual core, and each core itself is hyperthreaded... a virtual octet processor that's only marginally hotter and only takes up a little more room than a current dual processor system!

"That's Mama Luigi to you, Mario!" *wheeze*
     
Shaktai
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Mile High City
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 9, 2005, 12:45 AM
 
I run P4 with HT, Athlons including the 64 and Macs. There are no strict rules that say you can't combine HT with multiple cores. The Xeons are an example, but really they are early technology.

Steve talked about Intel's roadmap. Give it some though. Intel was one of the last to jump on the 64 bandwagon, and they weren't exactly the first to embrace dual cores (IBM was I think). But the reality is that while IBM is still "playing" with dual cores for Personal machines, Intel and AMD are delivering.

Likewise, there is no rule that says Apple can "only" use Intel chips. Very simply, Intel's mass production capabilities allow them to offer Apple a better per unit price then AMD, for the moment. However, the core capabilities are the same and Apple could pretty much run whatever is best at any given time. In fact, if IBM or Motorola just happened to pull a magic rabbit out of their hat, Apple could always go that way.

That is the beauty of Steve's vision. Options. Lots and lots of options. OS-X doesn't have to be tied to any ONE platform. With Apple's develoment tools, universal binaries and vision, Apple can change stride anytime and always provide the best CPU for the buck. And yes, now they can compete with Wintel manufacturers on a more cost effective basis.

The Pentium D dual cores are only "first generation" They will get better, and they will get better fast. I think that is why Apple is looking at two years for the migration, I think they are looking at dual core multiple processor units at home buyer prices.

My money is on Apple, and I have no regrets at buying my iMac G5, and if next year the best Apple box is still an IBM Power PC, that is what I will buy then. What Apple is demonstrating is that OS-X does not need to be CPU dependent. It can adapt, to whatever chip the manufacturers can produce. Apple can go with the best that any chip provider can make, and they will do it in Apple style making it better, more reliable, more stable and with the best OS on the market.
     
Catfish_Man
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 9, 2005, 04:02 AM
 
Originally Posted by anamexis
There have not been any (publicly displayed) combinations of SMT, dual-core, and dual-processors yet, to my knowledge.
Actually come to think of it, the 2 socket POWER5 boxes are dual core, dual socket, dual thread. The larger ones are even cooler (64 cores/128 threads). That's not exactly a desktop machine though
     
b11051973
Forum Regular
Join Date: Feb 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 10, 2005, 01:58 PM
 
Hyperthreading turns 1 processor into 2 virtual processors.

I've got it on my current 3.6Ghz Dell. It works pretty sweat. My old 2.4Ghz Dell did not have HT. If I would do any video encoding, it would pretty much make my system worthless for a couple hours. The video encoding would have my processor maxed and I could barely surf the internet.

With HT on my new computer, I can encode away, and my system is just as responsive. I did a test once on my new system. I went into the BIOS and turned HT off. I then tried some video encoding and my system was just as slow as my old Dell.

For my own use, I don't see needing more than 2 threads being processed at once. I'm sure someday, all apps will be designed for multiple threads. Having dual, dual-core, hyperthreaded processors would be awesome in that world. That's where future performance is going to come from instead of huge megahertz gains.
     
rotuts
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jan 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 10, 2005, 02:28 PM
 
Sorry power users for my ignorance. IBM PPC chips, dual or not are then not hyperthreaddable?

for hyperthreading to be of use. does it then need to be written in the Apps or is it part of the OS?

all my apps even minor one seem to distribute the work load based on the activity monitor to my two chips.
is this OS or App related?

thanks rotut
MacPro 2.66 dual 3GB RAM 1.5 TB HD's
24" + 21" Samsung flat panels
Miglia mini HD (Great!)
     
Catfish_Man
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 10, 2005, 02:43 PM
 
rotuts: IBM's POWER5 has hyperthreading, but nothing that's been used in a Mac does. To the operating system it looks exactly like dual processors, and is used in the same way. In theory (I think), neither the OS nor the applications need to be changed at all. The OS's scheduler just assigns threads to processors, whether virtual ones or real ones (although it can help performance a bit if the scheduler knows about hyperthreading). A single application can only use one processor unless it's written to use more, but if you're running more than one app you can use two processors even if none of the apps does (since the two apps can run on separate processors).
     
Maflynn
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Boston
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 10, 2005, 02:56 PM
 
Originally Posted by tooki
No, what killed OS/2 is its inability to run Windows 95 apps. MS decided to not renew OS/2's license of Windows technology when Win95 came out, so OS/2 was left only being able to run OS/2, DOS, and Windows 3.1 apps. Note that it ran the latter better than a real Win 3.1 system could!

tooki
I have to disagree with you there Tookie. When Win95 came out the competition was almost all but over.

in 1992 IBM released OS/2 ver.2 which included their workplace shell. This was going head to head with windows 3.1. The problem was that ibm was using the regular windows shell/file manager and wanted something different. This decision was late in the devlopment cycle and that delayed the release date of OS/2 ver. 2 significantly. This game MS a chance to release Win3.1 and grab a large markey share.

If IBM did not change the shell to the object oriented WPS but used the traditional file manager (and then add on the WPS later) they would have released the OS a lot sooner and who have beaten MS out the door (windows 3.1). Maybe then grabbing some market share.

Because of this and the incredible popularity of win 3.1 OS/2 fell behind quickly.

What you referenced was OS/2 Warp and yes while it contained the ability to run win3.1 programs (but not win95) they marketed this OS as a consumer OS that could run games. By the time win95 was nearing release windows was already the dominant operating system. The time for success was at windows 3.0 stage which OS/2 had the chance but the mis-steps by ibm slowed the development and so win 3.1 beat them

Back to my original thesis. While MS had beaten IBM out the door, IBM failed to convince software vendor's to write OS/2 apps because it was so easy to run win(3.1) apps. No econmic advantage was given to the vendors. so have People not buying it because of windows and vendor's reluctant to write software for the OS because it ran their windows 3.1 version. Remember when win95 came out there was little win95 programs out so the inability to run those phantom programs didn't hurt os2 (yet but it did eventually).

Mike
     
Hydra
Senior User
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: NY
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 10, 2005, 05:32 PM
 
The problem I see in future dual Powermacs, or whatever they will be called, is pricing not the technology. Take a look at what intel charges for CPU's that can be put in multi-cpu currently like the Xeon. They seem to be much more expensive than top of the line dual G5's are currently. Looking at Dell's dual Xeon's I'd say they are about $1000 more than a comparable dual G5. This makes me wonder what Apple pricing is going to be in this segment even if they use some future chip from intel that replaces the Xeon.

-Jerry C.
     
Scooterboy
Senior User
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Minneapolis for now
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 10, 2005, 10:08 PM
 
I wonder if SJ didn't paint Apple into a box. Maybe PowerMacs should remain G5. Dual G5 is an awesome setup. How about a pro Quad G5 PowerMac? 4 64 bit 2.7 or more GHz processors each with their own 1.35 GHz or faster FSB. That would rock! Nothing x86 can touch a G5 for FSB bandwidth. The G5 is made for media production. Who cares if a P4 can run Doom3 at higher framerates? Dual core Pentiums or HT cannot compare to 2 or more real processors each on their own 1/2 processor speed FSB.
Scooters are more fun than computers and only slightly more frustrating
     
Tyre MacAdmin
Mac Elite
Join Date: Feb 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 10, 2005, 10:40 PM
 
No matter what the front-end of the Mac takes shape I'll still be more interested in in the system throughput and disk system throughput... I want a Mac-Rarai!
     
bishopdante
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Jun 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 10, 2005, 11:10 PM
 
Everybody's missing the point. It goes like this. Being able to run windows on a Mac is the secret weapon. Don't you see? It's a compatability and integration thing. Why not buy a mac? Oh I don't know, I'm used to windows. All my stuff won't work anymore. Well here's what's changed : It's cheaper, more powerful and you can run windows or OSX on it! All yo gadgets will work with it. And look at it it's tiny and it's beatiful. You have to have it!

Six weeks later...

Oh my goodness I can't believe I ever used windows in the first place. OSX is so nice to use. I'll never buy another PC!

Three years later...

Dell merge with No.1 hardware retailer Apple Computer.

Ten years later...

All the personal computers contain standard parts, and all work properly. Half the world is having a happy iLife, and nobody is headbutting a blue screen.

In this peaceful future idyll, one teenage kid is idly video chatting to another on the other side of the Atlantic, for free, on their iChat pocket devices:

Did you know that Xbox used to make word processing and spreadsheet software? They used to be so boring! Open the windows, I'm getting a little hot in here. That tiny little mac sure puts out a lot of heat...
     
bishopdante
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Jun 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 10, 2005, 11:26 PM
 
And hey. I read that OS/2 crap. There's a big difference. I've been using Macs since I was 8, that's 17 years, and I'm addicted. I rely totally on my skills to earn my bread and if somebody tries to take apple away from me and give me some XP to work with I get cranky.

Why? It's because Apple stuff has soul. They're fun. They make strange noises, things flip about on the screen and bounce about. Apple's OSs have something of the Fischer Price toy about them. And that's a good thing. And there lies the attraction. A super professional tool that's as easy to use as a toy. And that isn't windows, is it.
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:50 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,