Boot Camp- OSX - and me

[James Bond]

I noticed that the new Boot Camp beta was recently released.

I thought that one of the main selling points of the new Intel Macs was the fact that it will soon be possible to achieve the 'boot into Windows on a Mac' feat...

Did Jobbs decide to allow people to boot into Windows on their current Macs since they will be able to soon on the Intel Macs anyway? Or whats goin on?

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: Tizyler
I noticed that the new Boot Camp beta was recently released.

I thought that one of the main selling points of the new Intel Macs was the fact that it will soon be possible to achieve the 'boot into Windows on a Mac' feat...

Did Jobbs decide to allow people to boot into Windows on their current Macs since they will be able to soon on the Intel Macs anyway? Or whats goin on?

It allows people to use Windows on new Intel Macs, not on the better Power variety.

 

[kylef]

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
It allows people to use Windows on new Intel Macs, not on the better Power variety.

You mean, "more expensive Power variety."

But seriously, is Apple planning to switch the powermacs to Intel chips? IMHO, the G5's days are numbered if they start prototyping powermacs with the latest dual-core, hyperthreaded Xeon chips. (With 2 of these, you would have 8 virtual processors. Or with 1 of these, you would save money over the quad-G5 solution.)

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: kylef

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
It allows people to use Windows on new Intel Macs, not on the better Power variety.

You mean, "more expensive Power variety."

No I don't.

But seriously, is Apple planning to switch the powermacs to Intel chips?

Yes, they're waiting for conroe or whatever that next chip from Intel is.

IMHO, the G5's days are numbered if they start prototyping powermacs with the latest dual-core, hyperthreaded Xeon chips. (With 2 of these, you would have 8 virtual processors. Or with 1 of these, you would save money over the quad-G5 solution.)

I don't think Apple is the only one using G5 designs...

PowerPC will be around for a while. Between all of the embedded applications and companies like genesi (although I hope better companies come along soonish) it'd be hard to get away from it.

 

[kylef]

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
I don't think Apple is the only one using G5 designs...
PowerPC will be around for a while. Between all of the embedded applications and companies like genesi (although I hope better companies come along soonish) it'd be hard to get away from it.

"G5" is an Apple marketing term for the 5th generation PowerPC chips from IBM, so it will probably die when Apple switches.

I never said the Power architecture's days were numbered.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: kylef

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
I don't think Apple is the only one using G5 designs...
PowerPC will be around for a while. Between all of the embedded applications and companies like genesi (although I hope better companies come along soonish) it'd be hard to get away from it.

"G5" is an Apple marketing term for the 5th generation PowerPC chips from IBM, so it will probably die when Apple switches.

I never said the Power architecture's days were numbered.

s/G5/PPC970. Better?

 

[kylef]

I think we understand each other.

Back on topic: Boot Camp is an interesting gamble. Basically Apple is betting that the capability of running Windows will lure more users to their hardware. The risk is that app vendors (specifically game studios) may cancel planned support for OS-X now that Mac users can just boot Windows to play.

After all, it's hard enough supporting different graphics adapters: supporting a completely different OS with different graphics libraries must be a nightmare. The ROI has to be pretty good to make it worthwhile.

 

[James Bond]

So can people buy the new Intel Macs right now? Or are they still not out

 

[drag]

Originally posted by: Tizyler
So can people buy the new Intel Macs right now? Or are they still not out

Well you can get the Macbook pro, the Imac, and the Mac mini using intel processors right now, I beleive.

After all, it's hard enough supporting different graphics adapters: supporting a completely different OS with different graphics libraries must be a nightmare. The ROI has to be pretty good to make it worthwhile.

Everybody else uses the OpenGL API for 3d capabilities.. Microsoft is the only one that makes graphic card people support something different. And pretty much the only ones left are unix-like operating systems with the same basic assumptions about libraries and whatnot.

Supposadly Nvidia uses the same basic driver and opengl code for Windows and Linux in their drivers. I don't know about ATI though. So I bet there are bigger differences between Windows and Linux then there is between Linux and OS X.. And anyways they already support OS X. Their drivers and cards aren't that different generation to generation. The major differences, as it seems to me, is pixel shading stuff and memory/processor speeds.

As for ROI.. the reason, as I understand it, that Linux and such has accelerated opengl graphics in the first place is because the folks in the high end market wanted fast 3d on Linux and were willing to pay for it. So for example you started of with ATI and their FireGL drivers that people figured out how to make work on consumer stuff.. Not so sure about Nvidia, but I expect it to be a similar situation.

 

[kylef]

Originally posted by: drag
Everybody else uses the OpenGL API for 3d capabilities.. Microsoft is the only one that makes graphic card people support something different.

This is dragging us really offtopic, but your take on the situation is twisted. First of all, "everybody else" comprises about 5% of the desktop market. As far as ATI and nVidia are concerned, these other platforms are not top-priority.

Second of all, ATI and nVidia are no big fans of OpenGL; the Architecture Review Board has angered them several times. ATI and nVidia get along with Microsoft just fine. They don't complain about being "coerced" as you seem to be implying.

They realize what is responsible for their sales: the gaming industry. And for games, most developers prefer the DirectX APIs precisely because they were designed in a unified fashion with game experience in mind. They have consistent audio, video, and input APIs focused on the same agenda. By contrast, only some of the OpenGL APIs are really useful for games, and other parts of game development must be left to other, less standardized libraries, which are missing nice features like synchronized audio/video support. Microsoft really goes out of its way to provide a first-class game development platform.

Anyway, my original point had nothing to do with the OpenGL vs. Direct3D battle. Whether you're using Direct3d or OpenGL, two different GPUs may render the same set of instructions completely differently. So now you have to experiment with different implementations, trying to get all platforms to look similar. You don't want to alienate one segment of the hardware market with inferior behavior.

THEN if you start to throw in a different underlying hardware/OS platform, you've just expanded your set of variables which could alter gameplay. It's a whole new set of potential bugs. And if you're only targeting 5% of the desktop market (e.g., OS X) then what's the point?

As for ROI.. the reason, as I understand it, that Linux and such has accelerated opengl graphics in the first place is because the folks in the high end market wanted fast 3d on Linux and were willing to pay for it.

I agree with you there. But keep in mind that the high-end market is not the gaming industry, and because OpenGL was mostly designed with the high-end market in mind (heavily SGI-influenced) it works well for them. But those same features don't necessarily translate well to the gaming industry.

 

[Markbnj]

The risk is that app vendors (specifically game studios) may cancel planned support for OS-X now that Mac users can just boot Windows to play.

I think that will definitely happen.

 

[spikespiegal]

if they start prototyping powermacs with the latest dual-core, hyperthreaded Xeon chips.

How you going to get a Xeon to do Altivec may I ask?

 

[kylef]

Originally posted by: spikespiegal
How you going to get a Xeon to do Altivec may I ask?

I definitely feel sorry for software developers who spent lots of time hand-tuning code for Altivec. But that's the risk you run when you lock yourself into boutique hardware...