Forums | MacLife

Apple does not make graphic cards, so that is a poor example. That and ATI after market GPUs come with drivers and kernel extensions so that is a moot point also.  Core Image and Core Video use functions on the GPU, but those functions do not change all that much from updated cards, they just get faster.

If Apple continues to use their own system controller (which would be odd since Phil said that Windows would install on it) then it will be very hard to make OS X work on anything else that does not have that chip.  But my gut guess is that Apple will use Intel chipsets and design their own motherboards and basically have a hardware dongle. OS X would not install nor run w/o it.  Windows would simply ignore it.

-mark

But I've dropped GPUs in Macs w/o installing squat and they have worked, but I do get what you are saying and I agree.

I've been doing a lot of reading comparing x86 to RISC cores and what I've read does not sound good. Intel better have something up their sleeve, because the 970 on paper still looks a lot more attractive than any currently shipping x86 product that Intel has.  Although the chipset and CPUs set to be announced next year look promising.    I sure hope Apple just did not make a very big mistake.  Those Consoles getting G5 derivatives sure do not seem like they left much room for cooling.  So how is M$ going to cool down a 3 core PPC running at 3+ Ghz in a box that is about 1/3 the size of a G5 tower?

Crap I might just bite the bullet and get the fastest PPC tower they come out with once they release the Intel based boxes. I am reasonable though, I need a new laptop and I'll gladly be a guinea pig and play Apple's little experiment.

-mark

Ribtorus wrote:

...on paper



what stage is denial, again?

What's wrong with that? Is that denial, wanting more than just the best OS on the same crappy hardware as everyone else?

,xtG
.tsooJ

and i'm still waiting for my coffee!

Chack out this post:
http://www.macfixit.com/article.php?sto … 7081920942

It talks about Apple no longer supporting 64bit computing with Intel. 

Here is what I know:

1.  I agree about the 3.2Ghz MulticorePPC chip seemingly being a superior chip.  A G5 with a 3.2Gig would be awesome!

2.  Intel PentiumM would likely be a better chip for mobile devices.  PentiumD is being rumored for DRM uses.

3.  A PowerMac with a PentiumD would be 32bit not 64bit.

4.  Tiger was released with 64-bit Virtual Memory enabling large amounts of RAM.

I fear that there will be unstable operating systems and unstable applications running with the use of Intel chips.

In future news:

Apple fired Steve Jobs today in a move to reorganize the company once known for innovation in the computer product line.  Analysts speculate that the move comes from Job's desire to migrate more of Apple's development team into Intel.  The original game plan for Apple was to revolutionize the video industry and capitalize on the mobile computing market.  However, consumers have long complained about the newer cheaper Macs no longer being distinguishable from other product brands in terms of performance.  They note that rival PC's and servers running 64bit processors are outpacing Macs at every level.  The entertainment sector never launched as Apple had planned due to a lack of interest in video downloading.  There are also rumors that Intel is secretly creating faster, more reliable chips that use the Microsoft OS.  Software developers have been less cooperative stating that Apple has been trying to "reinvent the wheel too many times".  It is not known if Apple will continue working with Intel.  Intel was not available for comments.

Futurer News:

Dell has purchased what's left of Apple and will use the remaining company resources to expand their market line.  "We will sell and support Apple products but will phase in Windows software in the coming months", citing the lack of 64bit computing  and lackluster performance.