Mac?

[Pzman]

Originally posted by Colin:

.

The current iMacs will probably play CMx2 just fine, maybe some more RAM. Remember CMx2 is like 99% of games and and won't take advantage of a second core or processor (if they use OpenAL for audio you'll see a small gain). The video card is going to be the most important thing for this title.

The 17" iMac has the ATI Radeon X600 Pro with 128MB, the 20" has the ATI Radeon X600 XT with 128MB. I think that both of those should run CMx2 fine. Now that the G5s have PCI-E graphics chips we should see a lot of improved preformance in that regard.

[lucero1148]

Just to set the record straight when Mac's move over to intel chips and how will that affect the coding of CMSF? So far from what I gather those with G4 and G5 chips in their machines (1GHz and up) should be able to play cmsf without a problem as long as their video card has more than 128mb?

Reading the ZD network story on Mac OSX running on a PentiumM Toshiba portable, ITunes ran much slower than iTunes for Windows due to the emulation of the coding. So if emulation coding for OSX programs runs slower on intel chips won't that affect CMSF playability?

[Pzman]

Core programs like iTunes, and other "i" programs would run nativly on Intel Chips thanks to Xcode. There is a type which allows the app to run on PPC and X86 without need for the emulation on X86. The current tests you are speaking of are based on a hacked version of OSX develper code. Which means that A) Its not even close to its final stage, Slower than the release version and C) the portable in question had only 512MB RAM. OSX loves RAM, more the better. I would suggest any user getting a new machine to have at least 768MB RAM, and 1GB for any users who are preforming anything short of simple everyday home use.

[lucero1148]

What was also interesting in that comparison test was that the Toshiba running OSX used less ram than the pc running xp. So it actually had more available ram to run the test programs.

Hopefully once the MacIntel machines are out that will settle the question of how well programs will run on the new chips and which direction BFC goes with CMSF on the Mac.

[aka_tom_w]

Mac rumour Link here:

www.thinksecret.com..../intelibook.html

EXCLUSIVE: Apple Planning Intel-Ready iBook Debut for January

By Ryan Katz, Senior Editor

November 17, 2005 - Apple is planning to release its first entry-level iBook laptops with Intel processors next January at Macworld Expo in San Francisco, highly reliable sources have confirmed to Think Secret.

It is not known exactly what processors or price points the new models will debut at, but it is thought Apple will expand the iBook line with one additional model and will lower prices—in some cases possibly $200 or more—to entice current Windows users and prove to the market it will be more competitive with the likes of Dell, Gateway, HP and Sony.

Those behind the report of Intel-ready iBooks are the same sources responsible for past reports of the Mac mini and photo iPod, first reported by Think Secret.

Those sources have told Think Secret to not rule out the possible release of other Intel-based Macs at Macworld Expo, but that it is more likely the initial release of products with the new processor will be consumer-based products only and not professional, high-end lines, such as PowerBooks and towers, as some Web sites have reported.

Apple will almost certainly tap Intel's forthcoming Yonah processor for the iBooks, a successor to the company's Pentium M. It is unknown whether Apple will go with a dual-core version of the processor, slated for release in January, or a single-core version, which Intel announced in August would be delivered shortly after the dual-core version. The dual-core Yonah chip could very likely deliver performance greater than Apple's current G4-based PowerBooks.

There is a little more at the web site if you are interested.

-tom w

[aka_tom_w]

Another interesting web page:

intel macs and Multiple OS's

Virtual Worlds - Multiple Users

Today Apple has mastered the art of moving from one computer user's space to another with its graphic cube effect. This is commonly known as Fast User Switching and is a system preference in Mac OS X. This feature, unique in OS X, allows a truly graceful way in which multiple users can utilize one shared computer, and Apple's Expose technology is at the heart of this interface transformation.

But imagine a world wherein you can cube the cube? Imagine that each user account can have multiple instances of operating systems (perhaps OS X and Windows, or Linux and OS X) running simultaneously. From the Apple menu a user would select an OS environment and an Expose cubic switch would literally swing around a different OS environment, just like today's Fast User Switching.

Much like Fast User Switching, accounts and applications stay active and running in the background. Instead of seeing a different OS X environment, you might see SuSE Linux or Windows or Solaris. The bottom line is: Apple already has the interface technique in place and the technology to make this happen in Expose. What it lacks is the ability to run multiple operating systems side by side. That it can now get from Intel and its virtualization technologies inside of future Pentium and Xeon chips.

Mactels may offer us not just smooth multiple user environments, but multiple OS worlds as well.

Intel's Future VT Chips

Intel is creating VT technology for a multitude of reasons. Virtualization can solve a multitude of problems confronting personal computer users. For starters, critical applications can be partitioned into their own containers, protecting sensitive data or processor intensive applications from going down. The ability to run multiple instances of the same operating system can benefit servers. And naturally, users will find great delight in the ability to run different operating systems on the same computer, each in its own independent partition, complete with crashing protection due to somebody elses wayward OS.

An interesting fact about VT in Intel's chips is that data inside a given partition can be completely erased after use. Information such as banking data, personal identification, codes, et cetera, can all be deleted after a given session. This may tie in to what Apple would like to do with video via it's iTunes Music Store. Critical code attached to a downloaded movie or television show may sit in a separate partition that is erased after the movie or TV show is played one time, thereby ensuring that customers get what they pay for and no more. And also ensuring that hackers don't try to reproduce video content.

[aka_tom_w]

More here

www.architosh.com

The big news yesterday (Nov 7 2005) was the discovery of an Apple patent that allows the computer maker to protect the installation of Mac OS X. In this case, really limit it to just Apple-produced hardware. However, the patent describes a process whereby users would be able to load one of three operating systems as their primary OS and then load a secondary operating system as their secondary OS. In the patent application, titled, System and method for creating tamper-resistant code, they describe the process as thus:

22. The method of claim 20, wherein the first operating system is selected from the set consisting of Mac OS X, Linux, and Microsoft Windows.

23. The method of claim 20, wherein the second operating system is selected from the set consisting of Mac OS X, Linux, and Microsoft Windows.

Preliminary Comments

Feel free to read the patent yourself. There is a link to the patent in this article here. For some reason the same link doesn't appear to work from our site. (US patent number: 20050246554). There are several interesting aspects to it, including the discussion of hardware serial numbers, virtual machines and the all important discussion of "tamper-resistant techniques" including the use of obfuscating a first object code block that determines a secondary code block. There is the discussion of operating systems being able to access core service calls based on a tamper-resistance policy.

Apple itself has said they will not prevent other operating systems from being installed on future MacTels. However, this patent seems to indicate a way the company will prevent Mac OS X from being installed on other hardware, while simultaneously dealing with multi-OS startup and the use of Virtual Machines on future Mac OS X systems.

[Pzman]

All I can say is, its unlikely Apple will support Windows installs on their machines without emulation like Virtual PC. Doing so would kill some major Mac application companies, and most likely wouldn't go over too well with many users who left the Windows world (or care not to use it) for a reason.

As for the Intel ibook, its sounds good, but the current ibook isn't that far along in its production cycle, not to meantion that having an ibook more Powerful than the Powerbook would be bad business for Apple. So if they do come out with new Intel Mac's in January I think the Mac Mini would be the first to go.

[aka_tom_w]

Pzman

Maybe you did not understand this was taken directly from a Patent approval...

However, the patent describes a process whereby users would be able to load one of three operating systems as their primary OS and then load a secondary operating system as their secondary OS. In the patent application, titled, System and method for creating tamper-resistant code, they describe the process as thus:

22. The method of claim 20, wherein the first operating system is selected from the set consisting of Mac OS X, Linux, and Microsoft Windows.

23. The method of claim 20, wherein the second operating system is selected from the set consisting of Mac OS X, Linux, and Microsoft Windows.

Believe it

its coming

their new intel computers WILL support mulitple operating systems running at the same time. Not in emmulation mode, NOT Virutal PC... but running on seperate paritions both running on the same CPU at the same time. That is what the Virtualization Technology that Intel has in its server chips now is all about.

Just read that patent approval above.

-tom w

[ November 17, 2005, 03:52 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[Pzman]

Apple has put patents on many things they have never used, just like many other companies. The day you can boot Windows on a Mac will be the death of Macs.

[lucero1148]

I don't think Mac's will die if Windows can be opened on a separate partition within the Mac. It would actually be more inviting. Virtual PC is not a bad program but as its an emulator Windows programs don't run as fast as on a real Windows pc. Mac user's wanting to play pc games can do so without having to buy another pc just for games. PC user's can move back and forth between OSX just to surf the web as OSX is still relatively virus free until hackers decide the Mac OS is profitable to hack into. It'll be great for pro users as well especially for audio and video editors.

[Pzman]

You still wouldn't be able to play PC games. The ROMs on the graphics cards will not allow it. Since all the new Macs are using PCI-E cards there is no malti-purpose chips for them. Regular PCI cards, like those of old Macs can take the one daul ROM ATI 9600 cards, but not the new ones as far as I know.

[aka_tom_w]

I am still betting that the new intel Macs WILL run PC apps natively on Windows running natively on the Mac intel CPU.

this OLD news is just speculation from a Mac gaming web site:

The problem here, of course, is the unknown. There have been several doomsday scenarios already played out in the online community regarding Mac gaming. The first scenario involves running Windows games under a Mac Intel machine. If PC games can run as fast on these new Macs as their PC counterparts, where will that leave porting companies such as Aspyr and MacSoft? The key here is how well these PC games would run under dual booting, emulation layer or virtual box. Beyond speed, there will be other determining and important issues such as stability, easy of use, and technical support. I can't stress that enough. If PC games don't work well under Mac Intel, you can bet there will be customers clamoring for Mac native games.

That to me is the biggest question. How well will PC games run on Intel Macs? Although we won't know for sure until the machines are released next year, I'm sure the upcoming development kits that Apple is providing Mac developers will be telling. This will give developers and hackers a year to play around with the possibilities of PC gaming on the Mac. Between now and then, we will have a pretty good idea as to where the Mac games market will be headed. However, if the hardware in the development kits are just that, development kits, and the actual Mac Intel hardware released next year are Apple motherboards with Apple parts, and so on, then getting Windows to run on these Intel Macs will not be easy. Look at it this way. If Apple were to use off the shelf PC parts to build these new Macs, then Apple would release the Intel Macs in 3 months, not a year. Apple will make Macs that act and feel like like today's Macs, not like clones.

Let's speculate for a bit here. Let's just say that you will be able to run PC games on Intel Macs by either booting into Windows or via virtual machine ware on OS X. If this scenario comes to fruition, then I don't think there will be any doubt that Mac gaming, as we know it today, will change dramatically. Companies like Aspyr may slowly abandon ports since you'll be able to readily play thousands of PC games on the new Macs. How likely is this scenario? Given the facts as we know them today about these machines, it's very possible. However, there's one part about this that just doesn't convince me. While I know that Apple said they "won't do anything in the hardware that would preclude from someone using Windows", the simple fact is that if Windows is allowed to run as good on a 3.6 GHz Mac as an equivalent PC, you can pretty much kiss the platform goodbye. In essence, PC developers will have little to no incentive to port their stuff to the Mac. And I'm not just talking about games. I'm talking about important, must have software. Remember, the Mac experience is not just about the cool hardware and the flashy OS, it's about the thousands of developers who create original titles for the Mac or port their stuff to the Mac. Is Apple really going to let Windows run "great" on Intel Macs? Is Apple really going to even let dual booting be an option? I seriously doubt it.

web page

[aka_tom_w]

November 04, 2005

MacTel strategy includes Windows and Linux

Posted by Sandy

Here's some new ammunition for those who think Apple's move to Intel processors is about building computers that can run both Mac and Windows applications.

Apple's U.S. patent application 0050246554 ("System and method for creating tamper-resistant code") describes scenarios in which the user would choose a "first operating system" and a "second operating system" from a set that includes Mac OS X, Microsoft Windows, and Linux.

There's also mention of a virtual machine, and the option to choose between "Macintosh computer" and "Windows PC."

I realize that patent applications try to anticipate every possibility, but this is a very plausible strategy for Apple's Intel machines: embrace and extend what its competitors' computers can do.

When Windows Vista ships, Microsoft will encourage users to upgrade. Many home computers will be unable to meet Vista's minimum system requirements. (For example, Vista will need a dedicated video card, not just "integrated video," but many current PCs do not even have an AGP slot.)

Apple has more than a year to come up with a competitively priced computer capable of running both Mac and Windows applications. It could run both systems at once, or -- as the patent seems to suggest -- run one system natively and the other in a virtual machine. (Users could choose which OS should be the dominant or "first" operating system.)

Michael Dell should be concerned. So should HP, Gateway, Lenovo/IBM, and every other Windows PC maker. Apple controls OS X, and does not license it to others. Therefore, only Apple can build a personal computer capable of running Windows and Mac OS X.

Microsoft's OEM partners could ask Microsoft not to license Windows to Apple, or to offer them better license terms, but would Microsoft go for it? I suspect the company's consent agreement with the DoJ would make this difficult if not impossible to do.

Very interesting. Stay tuned...

web page

[Pzman]

Lets put it this way, unless I see Steve Jobs running Windows nativily without emulation/virual machine technology (basicly the same thing) on a Mac at MWSF 06, or Mac Expo 06, I wont believe it.

[Michael Emrys]

Well, I've gone and done it. I ordered the Dual-Core 2.5. Which should pretty well break the bank for the next five years. But what the hell, life is short and with the Republicans in charge of the economy, that money probably won't be worth anything pretty soon anyway.

The salesman told me it would ship on the 25th., which is my birthday. I thought that was kind of neat.

Michael

[Pzman]

Good luck with that, there are a lot of back orders on the current Dual-Core Machines, some people have to wait till January to get theirs!

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Pzman:

Good luck with that, there are a lot of back orders on the current Dual-Core Machines, some people have to wait till January to get theirs!

Really? The salesman said they would start shipping on Friday. But you know how they lie. Oh well, as long as this one is still working, I'm not out of shape. I only ordered now because they were offering a rebate for a limited time.

Michael

[Pzman]

I hear that this Friday all Apple Stores (online included) are having a "sale", in the US anyway. The Machines are shipping, and it may depend on if you got a stock machine or a Built to order machine. Stock ships way faster than BTO.

[Colin]

We have the dualcore in stock but the quad cores haven't shipped to us.

I also have seen January as a date on a few orders.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Pzman:

I hear that this Friday all Apple Stores (online included) are having a "sale", in the US anyway. The Machines are shipping, and it may depend on if you got a stock machine or a Built to order machine. Stock ships way faster than BTO.

It's only BTO to the extent that I am taking advantage of their offer of 2 free (except for an installation fee) gigs of memory. Otherwise, it's straight stock.

Michael

[Sixxkiller]

Why do you Mac users always assume that a Mac running windows is death to Apple? Apple is currently LESS than 3% or all home and Business computing.

Apple needs to expand or die. If they can increase their share of the market by bringing in long time PC users that will bring in massive amounts of cash, which they need. Apple will also benefit by getting their O/S viewed and used by many more people. Right now if it wasnt for Ipod Apple would be hurting.

Then in a decade or so they can revert to their current practice and compete much more effectively.

-Ray

[aka_tom_w]

I agree

Running windows on the mac without ANY extra software or hardware will expand Mac sales not that other way around.

I FULLY expect the next generation Intel Macs will attempt to market themselves as the "Swiss Army Knife" of computers with the ability to natively switch Operating systems (including Windows and Linus and BSD Unix under OS X) as EASILY as Mac's now switch users in the 'Fast User Switching" software.

Sure there will be few bugs at first, but they will fix them and they WILL sell more computers that can run Windows and OS X simultansously on the same CPU.

What it could mean is a near death experience for ALL Mac gaming development, but that is a WHOLE other story.

-tom w

[ November 23, 2005, 01:52 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[Pzman]

Originally posted by Sixxkiller:

Apple is currently LESS than 3% or all home and Business computing.

Wrong, 6% and growing.

[Peter Cairns]

Sixxkiller,

So what percentage of american car sales are "Porsche's"?

Peter.