Jump to content


Developer IntelliMac Info


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
161 replies to this topic

#1 jason181

jason181

    Heroic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 304 posts

Posted 24 June 2005 - 08:51 AM

This article talks about the developer version of the IntelliMac. Kind of interesting that it mentions that Windows XP installs pretty much flawlessly.

Jason

#2 placebo

placebo

    Legendary

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 929 posts
  • Location:Massachusetts

Posted 24 June 2005 - 09:49 AM

I want one of these things so bad.

#3 Siriusfox

Siriusfox

    Legendary

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1148 posts
  • Steam Name:opensiriusfox
  • Location:Washington State

Posted 24 June 2005 - 10:17 AM

Now we have another Mac+. Buy a Mac, try it out, if you don't like it. Then install windows on a superior computer. And if you ever come to your senses you still can wipe the windows stuff and reinstall the Mac stuff. Ou-Rah! :D
20'' iMac Intel Core Duo 2GHz, 10.6.5, 2GB RAM, 256MB ATI X1600

"Home computers are being called upon to perform many new functions, including the consumption of homework formerly eaten by the dog." -Doug Larson

#4 Mister Mumbles

Mister Mumbles

    Uberspewer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2511 posts
  • Location:Not here; not there; not anywhere!

Posted 24 June 2005 - 12:13 PM

Interesting article. It's just a question of will it stay that way? (if those facts are indeed true) Or is it simply something they'll allow developers to do? *shrugs*
Formerly known as a Mac gamer.

#5 RandyWang

RandyWang

    Heroic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 401 posts
  • Location:Canberra, Australia

Posted 25 June 2005 - 04:47 AM

joefox, on June 25th 2005, 03:17 AM, said:

Now we have another Mac+. Buy a Mac, try it out, if you don't like it. Then install windows on a superior computer. And if you ever come to your senses you still can wipe the windows stuff and reinstall the Mac stuff. Ou-Rah! :D

View Post


I suspect you'd have a hard time arguing that Apple's hardware is better than anybody else's, given that they use commodity hardware for almost everything in their machines. Hell, there's a lot of things their hardware doesn't support that other manufacturers do *cough*PCI-E*cough*
Why are you looking at my Macintosh?

#6 Space_Pirate_Killer

Space_Pirate_Killer

    above n00b

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2270 posts
  • Location:Under a Crust.

Posted 25 June 2005 - 04:58 AM

Apple will probably have PCI-E on the Mactels.
The official Inside Mac Games forum Space Pirate Killer.

#7 RandyWang

RandyWang

    Heroic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 401 posts
  • Location:Canberra, Australia

Posted 25 June 2005 - 05:20 AM

What are you basing that assumption on?
Why are you looking at my Macintosh?

#8 Space_Pirate_Killer

Space_Pirate_Killer

    above n00b

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2270 posts
  • Location:Under a Crust.

Posted 25 June 2005 - 05:41 AM

Apple will probably want to have the best technology and most advanced features in their computers.
The official Inside Mac Games forum Space Pirate Killer.

#9 RandyWang

RandyWang

    Heroic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 401 posts
  • Location:Canberra, Australia

Posted 25 June 2005 - 05:49 AM

Don't they already say they have the best technology, the most advanced features? If they don't put PCI-E into their flagship computers right now, then I see no particular reason for them to be interested in putting it into what will be - for marketing purposes - exactly the same machine.

Be careful about the assumptions you make without evidence: Apple already has a vested interest in putting the best possible hardware they can into the PowerMacs, and yet they don't. Why should they begin to do so with the Intel line?
Why are you looking at my Macintosh?

#10 Space_Pirate_Killer

Space_Pirate_Killer

    above n00b

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2270 posts
  • Location:Under a Crust.

Posted 25 June 2005 - 05:53 AM

Because they need to compete with rival companies using similar proccesors.
The official Inside Mac Games forum Space Pirate Killer.

#11 Eric5h5

Eric5h5

    Minion Tormentor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7160 posts

Posted 25 June 2005 - 06:05 AM

PCI-E just isn't that necessary right now.  Or can you find benchmarks that show a PCI-E machine blowing away a non-PCI-E machine?  It will, however, become a lot more necessary and standard over the next few years.  I would not be at all surprised to see the next PowerMacs having PCI-E.  Why wouldn't they?  (And current PowerMacs are in fact the best hardware there is, at least from a engineering design perspective.  Just opening them up is really cool; much better than any other computer I've seen, including previous PowerMacs.)

--Eric

#12 RandyWang

RandyWang

    Heroic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 401 posts
  • Location:Canberra, Australia

Posted 25 June 2005 - 06:29 AM

Eric5h5, on June 25th 2005, 11:05 PM, said:

PCI-E just isn't that necessary right now.  Or can you find benchmarks that show a PCI-E machine blowing away a non-PCI-E machine?

Ignoring the fact that most next-generation graphics cards will be PCI-E-only cards (just look at the market-leading GeForce 7800 GTX, which doesn't come in an AGP version), the point where we have to deal with such tremendous amounts of data that AGP 8x isn't enough will be coming along very soon. My issue is not that Apple may, in the future, support the new bus architecture - but rather, that there's no evidence they'll be doing it with the first generation of Intel Macs.

Further, the PCI-E example was being used in response to this post...

Quote

Now we have another Mac+. Buy a Mac, try it out, if you don't like it. Then install windows on a superior computer. And if you ever come to your senses you still can wipe the windows stuff and reinstall the Mac stuff. Ou-Rah!

...which was working on the assumption that Apple's hardware will be, and already is, superior to that of a whitebox PC, when it quite patently isn't. I'm not arguing that it won't be comparable in the future, because I'm still working with reference to that specific post.

Quote

Because they need to compete with rival companies using similar proccesors.

Last I checked, they were already competing with these exact same companies.

Quote

And current PowerMacs are in fact the best hardware there is, at least from a engineering design perspective.

View Post


The PowerMac G5 is aimed at the scientific and video-editing markets. There's a clash right there - when you're dealing with the ridiculous amounts of data that are common when editing video at a professional level, you want far more internal storage than the pathetic 800Gb available without serious internal modification of the machine. Any custom-built PC will easily allow twice that or more, so on what basis can you claim that the internal design of the PowerMac is "the best"?

Further, what workstation-class desktop machine has only one optical drive? Even the PowerMac G4s had two, and the G5's case redesign was supposed to be an upgrade.
Why are you looking at my Macintosh?

#13 Space_Pirate_Killer

Space_Pirate_Killer

    above n00b

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2270 posts
  • Location:Under a Crust.

Posted 25 June 2005 - 06:33 AM

Have you heard of external drives?
The official Inside Mac Games forum Space Pirate Killer.

#14 RandyWang

RandyWang

    Heroic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 401 posts
  • Location:Canberra, Australia

Posted 25 June 2005 - 06:52 AM

You mean, even after I've invested US$4500+ on my bitchin' fast video-editing rig, I still need to buy external hardware just to make up for it should have supported to begin with? Sorry, but that doesn't sound like "the best hardware around" to me.
Why are you looking at my Macintosh?

#15 Space_Pirate_Killer

Space_Pirate_Killer

    above n00b

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2270 posts
  • Location:Under a Crust.

Posted 25 June 2005 - 06:57 AM

800GB isn't that little.
Apparently:
HD film= 1Gb/ Minute
Normal film= 250MB/minute

So therefore 800  GB- 80GB for applications.
HD= 12 hours
Normal=48 hours.
The official Inside Mac Games forum Space Pirate Killer.

#16 RandyWang

RandyWang

    Heroic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 401 posts
  • Location:Canberra, Australia

Posted 25 June 2005 - 07:10 AM

Not quite.

When you're editing - for instance - a feature-length film, you want to be able to have access to huge amounts of data. This includes fast access to hundreds or more 1080p or 720p video clips at sixty frames per second (for an uncompressed datarate not of 1Gbyte per minute, but 3 Gigabits per second), since every scene in a film must be shot a number of times, from half a dozen angles. So we're not talking about simply sticking together a few hours' worth of video, but rather taking hundreds of hours' worth and then selecting absolutely the best from that huge collection of moving images. Even for a relatively short video clip, that's still a huge amount of storage you need - a mere forty minutes of video at the highest possible HD datarate, already in use.

That means you need to have an insane amount of storage, preferably within the PowerMac itself to avoid having to specifically purchase an XServe on which to run XSan. And even after the film has been successfully edited, it still has to be exported into a number of formats for use, taking up still more space on the machine. There is a very real need for huge amounts of storage in the G5 line, and as a result the line is crippled in that market by it's inability to provide without - as I said - major modification of the case.
Why are you looking at my Macintosh?

#17 Space_Pirate_Killer

Space_Pirate_Killer

    above n00b

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2270 posts
  • Location:Under a Crust.

Posted 25 June 2005 - 07:27 AM

Anyone who edits like that must be able to afford an $8,000 HD camera $4,000 editing Rig and Final cut studio. They probably can afford to shell out a few hundred for an external drive.
The official Inside Mac Games forum Space Pirate Killer.

#18 RandyWang

RandyWang

    Heroic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 401 posts
  • Location:Canberra, Australia

Posted 25 June 2005 - 07:31 AM

Space_Pirate_Killer, on June 26th 2005, 12:27 AM, said:

Anyone who edits like that must be able to afford an $8,000 HD camera $4,000 editing Rig and Final cut studio. They probably can afford to shell out a few hundred for an external drive.

View Post


That's just working around the fact that Apple's hardware is not the best in the industry, which is the case I'm arguing against. I agree with you that they can afford to look at external storage solutions, but the point is that they have to at all - Apple cannot possibly sell "the best hardware" when they can't even provide internal expansion comparable to other manufacturers.

Let's take this further: How can Apple sell "the best" hardware, when they don't even support the latest versions of GeForce and X800 series of graphics cards? I find it hard to believe that a PowerMac is somehow "better" than a machine a much faster graphics card and a greater internal storage capacity. And multiple optical drives. And a considerably faster processor (dual dual-core Opterons, perchance?).

They simply don't compare.
Why are you looking at my Macintosh?

#19 Space_Pirate_Killer

Space_Pirate_Killer

    above n00b

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2270 posts
  • Location:Under a Crust.

Posted 25 June 2005 - 07:32 AM

But wouldn't have to put in extra internal Hard drive space cost the same as external space?
The official Inside Mac Games forum Space Pirate Killer.

#20 RandyWang

RandyWang

    Heroic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 401 posts
  • Location:Canberra, Australia

Posted 25 June 2005 - 07:35 AM

Quote

But wouldn't have to put in extra internal Hard drive space cost the same as external space?

No.
Why are you looking at my Macintosh?