New Mac Intel's;Gaming Expanded

[neobi]

I will now definately have to get a new mac. I know there's quite a few of us here that are mac users. Like 4x the speed! Crazy! Especially with the worried possible emulation of windows on a mac. I have GuestPC to run like xp apps and stuff but it definately runs at a slower pace. But with this, emulation will be a breeze, which microsoft is worried about. And apps will become universal, no more of that 'this only works for BLAH' crap. Applications will be native for everything now.

I still think it's udderly retarded how like XP's searching is sooo friggen slow, since its a text based system while macs have always been image based, you'ld think it would be faster. I can find any files instantly on my mac, while friends comps, they don't even bother searching for crap cause it's sooo damn slow, they're better off guessing where the files at.

Gaming between comps will also be improved greatly too. Any game you can have, I can have and could play together online. The greatest operating system has just gotten better.

[JLaCroix]

Re: New Mac Intel's;Gaming Expanded

Personally I don't like Windows or MacOS, so the feeling is mutual between them.

And just so everyone knows, just because the new Mac's use the intel platform, does not mean you can run everything Windows users can. If you emulate, you can run Windows software, but if you emulate it, your application's speed and performance will be cut in half at best. (Meaning, emulated games will run horribly).

[neobi]

Re: New Mac Intel's;Gaming Expanded

That's where your wrong, with the new intel chips, running mac's 4x faster. It can emulate and run other things as if they were normal speed. My emulator on my comp runs only somewhat slow, and if you times it's speed by 4, well it would run clean and crisp.

[RPGD]

Re: New Mac Intel's;Gaming Expanded

You're talking to a wall, person.

[banned]

Re: New Mac Intel's;Gaming Expanded

i just dont like macs at all

[thetruecoolness]

Re: New Mac Intel's;Gaming Expanded

I really doubt Macs are going to run 4x faster. It might be 4 times the MHz, but that does not mean it will be 4x faster, since Mac has always underclocked their chips, though they still ran applications at comparable speeds. Also when you speed up the chip you also limit the amount of instructions it can do in a clock cycle, so it's really hard to have your cake and eat it too with processors. GHz is mainly just a marketing ploy anyway, which is the whole reason AMD starting naming their chips by the comparable speed on an Intel Chip, so consumers would realize a 2.2GHz AMD chip is just as good as a 3.5GHz Pentium (even better than it on single threaded apps like games). So if you have proof it will be actually 4 times faster and not just run at 4 times the MHz I would like to see it, not being mean, just kind of skeptical of saying a computer is magically going to be 4x faster, since that even breaks Moore's Law. Of course even with this you would have to improve the memory, hard drive speeds, and bus speeds by 4x as well to actually get 4x speed up, processor speed alone does not make a fast computer.

It's nice to see Mac finally catching up to the times, and not being completely proprietary, but I still won't be getting one, because unless they get DirectX I doubt you will see many games going to it. Though a couple of games use OpenGL they are few and far between, though more may start it's not the architecture preventing them from doing it or more games would come out for Linux. Also emulation is still kind of iffy legally, and you would have to port all the windows dlls and such to make it work succefully. Linux has been working on emulation for a long time, and even it is still no perfect, and Linux works on almost all architectures, so even if it is now possible it will be a while before emulation works perfectly. To me Macs file browser is pretty counterintuative so you would have to use search to find anything, just my personal opinion. And using Windows 2000 search isn't that slow for me, of course I also narrow down my search to a partition or two.

So not trying to burst anyones bubble, just being realistic, and from the things I've learned in OS classes, and the various hardware courses I've taken. Nothing against Mac, they are a good alternative for some people, just not me, but 4x faster either implies they we awefully slow before (which I know is not true), or have finally given into the dark side.

[Roland Of Gilead]

Re: New Mac Intel's;Gaming Expanded

I'd totally get one of the new macs. Definantly.

[JLaCroix]

Re: New Mac Intel's;Gaming Expanded

That's where your wrong, with the new intel chips, running mac's 4x faster. It can emulate and run other things as if they were normal speed. My emulator on my comp runs only somewhat slow, and if you times it's speed by 4, well it would run clean and crisp.

Wrong? Abolutely not. Here's why.

(I've done an extreme amount of researching on this on my own).
No matter what you do, or how great your software is, you will NEVER get the applications speed or performance up to par as running it on the platform it was designed to run on.

Emulation companies would have to license code from Microsoft in order to become *almost* as good as the real thing, and most, if not all, don't.

If you use software to emulate a working Windows computer, the software takes its best guest as to how to handle certain instructions. It can never be exact unless you are truly running it on what it was designed to run on. To this end, this means that some games or programs will work, others won't. Some will work halfassed, some will work perfectly (and sometimes better) but most will either not run at all or run slowly. This is also because those that code emulation programs when it comes to OS emulators would have to write millions of instructions custom for each program available in order to get a perfect emulation. (So we're talking about billions, possibly trillions of instructions the programmers would have to write). Instead, when making emulation software, programmers recode the most popular instructions, in hopes it will be enough to run the program in question.

Even if the processor is faster, that will not compensate to make the emulator run the program as fast as it was meant to run. Emulation programs, other than the console emulators (we're talking Operating System emulators only) have an EXTREME memory footprint that will be too much for any processor out today or in the near future.

On the other hand, we also have "virtual machines" which are much more usable than emulators. (This is primarily what Mac OS uses). The memory footprint of virtual machines is worse than emulation, they're practically insane. Expect some system requirements of some programs ran here to be double in some situations. In another sense, practically no virtual machine software is capable of hardware acceleration for games. What's even worse, is for Virtual Machine software to run properly, you have to dedicate at least half of your RAM to that program alone. (You can always change the amount of RAM you are dedicating). You need to have at least 512MB of RAM for anything to run properly for the VM alone. This means, for example, if you have 768MB of RAM and your Operating System needs 256MB (which is the norm with newer operating systems) you would only have 512MB free, and that is exactly the minimum to use with VM software, so in essence, at that point you are starting to thrash the hard drive by causing the Operating System to start swapping data in memory to temporary space on the hard drive, which will slow you down to a crawl.

Running programs such as Microsoft Word or Photoshop under the VM would not be all that hard to do, and would probably run good even if you only dedictated the minimum 192MB. (Preferably 256). When you start trying to load games, which already have high memory requirements, the Virtual Machine would increase the need for RAM further. Also take into consideration the need for hardware acceleration that almost all 3D games need to run smoothly, which the VM would not have. If your VM software does not have hardware acceleration, you can make up for that with the processor, if you have a good one, but with some games, don't be surprised if you need a 5ghz computer (which hasn't been invented yet) to run a high end 3D game properly.

And then, by the time that happens, that 5ghz machines are available, the operationg systems that run them will need to eat more processor to run properly, so you are back at square one.

[JLaCroix]

Re: New Mac Intel's;Gaming Expanded

I really doubt Macs are going to run 4x faster. It might be 4 times the MHz, but that does not mean it will be 4x faster, since Mac has always underclocked their chips, though they still ran applications at comparable speeds. Also when you speed up the chip you also limit the amount of instructions it can do in a clock cycle, so it's really hard to have your cake and eat it too with processors. GHz is mainly just a marketing ploy anyway, which is the whole reason AMD starting naming their chips by the comparable speed on an Intel Chip, so consumers would realize a 2.2GHz AMD chip is just as good as a 3.5GHz Pentium (even better than it on single threaded apps like games). So if you have proof it will be actually 4 times faster and not just run at 4 times the MHz I would like to see it, not being mean, just kind of skeptical of saying a computer is magically going to be 4x faster, since that even breaks Moore's Law. Of course even with this you would have to improve the memory, hard drive speeds, and bus speeds by 4x as well to actually get 4x speed up, processor speed alone does not make a fast computer.

It's nice to see Mac finally catching up to the times, and not being completely proprietary, but I still won't be getting one, because unless they get DirectX I doubt you will see many games going to it. Though a couple of games use OpenGL they are few and far between, though more may start it's not the architecture preventing them from doing it or more games would come out for Linux. Also emulation is still kind of iffy legally, and you would have to port all the windows dlls and such to make it work succefully. Linux has been working on emulation for a long time, and even it is still no perfect, and Linux works on almost all architectures, so even if it is now possible it will be a while before emulation works perfectly. To me Macs file browser is pretty counterintuative so you would have to use search to find anything, just my personal opinion. And using Windows 2000 search isn't that slow for me, of course I also narrow down my search to a partition or two.

So not trying to burst anyones bubble, just being realistic, and from the things I've learned in OS classes, and the various hardware courses I've taken. Nothing against Mac, they are a good alternative for some people, just not me, but 4x faster either implies they we awefully slow before (which I know is not true), or have finally given into the dark side.

I'm also wondering if the "4x faster" claim means that it's 4x faster than the PPC architecture (which isn't saying all that much) or previous Intel chips (which at this time is not possible).

However, Apple's switch to Intel brings several other factoids to light. First of all, the main question, was that since Windows uses the Intel platform, it would be possible to install Windows on the new Mac's. This, however, can't be done yet, because Apple put a lockout chip in their motherboards to only allow you to install Mac OS.

This is proof that Apple is the most proprietary thing on the planet, they are literally (and admittingly) stealing your right to choose what software to run.

However, putting that aside, I think that this will ultimately spell the end for Apple software. (Though not likely the hardware, yet). Reason being, is that hackers are right now attempting to hack this chip to enable the freedom of your operating system, and most Linux providers are already underway to make their software hack the chip so you'd be able to run Linux on them.

With the threat of the lockout chip out of the way, few would have any reason to use Mac OSX, because with a Mac computer that can practically run any software (once the lockout chip is hacked), who would need Mac OS anymore?

Now don't get me wrong, I am not trying to offend anyone. I just love talking about technology and this is a good topic for it. Nothing against Mac's, to each their own, even though I still don't understand why people use it.

[neobi]

Re: New Mac Intel's;Gaming Expanded

It provides 2MB of Smart Cache, L2 cache that can be shared between both cores as needed. It delivers higher performance in 2D and 3D graphics, video editing, and music encoding. And the new engine is only part of the story. MacBook Pro has a frontside bus and memory that, at 667MHz, runs faster than any previous Mac notebook. It’s the first Mac notebook with PCI Express, a Serial ATA hard drive and the ATI Mobility Radeon X1600 for superfast graphics performance.

Certainly games that can run faster 2d and 3d graphics, when macs have already been able to flawlessly and quickly run full fledged 3d games is a plus.

And it's not just about the new Intel chips all mac's will come with a built in iSight. One thing that has urked me about other computer companies, is they've always like made you buy your own mic. Mac has always come with one built in of high performance. And now a built in camera as well. I've also seen the computer in performance. Clarity beyond imagination! And maybe all my friends computers just suck, even when they brand new ones, b/c I've used them and they drive me nuts both visually and speed wise(esp. the searching as noted before).

And the Applications of the future are all starting to be "native," watch the latest keynote vid (hour and 1/2 long though) to see what I'm talking about. Applications like Photoshop will come on a single DVD and won't matter what new OS your running(mac).

(sidenote: I added the stuff on gaming because this is the video game forum and I'm banned from free forum :P )

[Biggie]

Re: New Mac Intel's;Gaming Expanded

I always thought of getting a Mac for internet use, on a PC, you have to run spyware, adware, and virus scans, and do these regularly. Get firewall, pop up blockers, bla bla bla. Its almost worse than taking care of a damn kid.

[Alex]

Re: New Mac Intel's;Gaming Expanded

Here is where you're all wrong, and I'm right(believe me, I've got tons of research to back me up. I even read a book. I also have more experience than ANY of you and if you try to refute it, you'll just fail. It's that simple.):

PC games are stupid. Windows is a wreck. Linux is too much work. Macs are prettier than all the other computers and they can do anything you tell them to and more.

[neobi]

Re: New Mac Intel's;Gaming Expanded

Here is where you're all wrong, and I'm right(believe me, I've got tons of research to back me up. I even read a book. I also have more experience than ANY of you and if you try to refute it, you'll just fail. It's that simple.):

PC games are stupid. Windows is a wreck. Linux is too much work. Macs are prettier than all the other computers and they can do anything you tell them to and more.

100% correct

[Alex]

Re: New Mac Intel's;Gaming Expanded

I was joking.

[thetruecoolness]

Re: New Mac Intel's;Gaming Expanded

Well you might be right about the prettier argument, Macs definitely do go for the aesthetics, possibly more than performance and compatibility. I can't argue with the fact that they do seem to perform just as well or better at media creation (or maybe their just easier), because most people that use a mac do some kind of art related things on them. It does seem that they are branching out a bit, switching to a UNIX core for their system now (though they have their own version of Java which you can't upgrade without upgrading your OS), and Intel chips.

Now as for those stats you threw out, PCs already have those stats, the Intel ones anyway, which bloat their figures to an extent. Technically AMDs new processors have 1Ghz FSB, since it's built into the chip, and AMDs Dual Core technology is looking to be a lot better than what Intel came up with according to some hardware review sites, though as of right now Intel still performs slightly better on multithreaded applications (which are rare). Also most high end PC chips have 2MB of L2 cache now as well. PCI Express has been on PC for almost a year now, SATA even longer than that, since a 3Gb/s transfer rate SATA (SATA2) is now out. So if Mac really is going 4x faster, they are just catching up to the competition.

Point is the 4x claim is dubious at best, either means they are admitting their major lag behind in performance (which I know not to be the case), or once again it's a marketing ploy aimed at consumers who just want to see big numbers and crazy claims without researching what those numbers mean. Now it might be true it will meet or possibly even beat a PC at some things, but that would mean it is just as fast, not even 2x faster. Especially when you talk about gaming until Intel does something amazing or apple adopts AMD (which I'm sure will come soon since it is an Intel clone basically) PCs with an AMD chip will still be much better than a Mac, since in every test I've seen recently between AMD and Intel on gaming performance, AMD beat them hands down. So games will still be slower on Mac, especially if emulated, assuming they work in the first place.

And Bigfoot, all OSes have security vunerabilities and exploits and still need to have some kind of antivirus and firewall on them. Windows just seems like it has so many more because it is used by around 90% of the population or so (yeah some of it probably is bad coding, or the fact that windows is now gigantic, though so are most of the other OSes). No OS will ever be completely safe, as the only completely safe computer is one you never use, or more practically one you never connect to an outside network. I know it's a bit of a cliche saying, but it is true. I would argue all security can be broken, it's just a matter of how long and how much effort it will take, just like with real security systems, except easier.