myzar Posted January 11, 2006 Share Posted January 11, 2006 Yes Myzar, I just look at that article again and notice that 945 was mentioned. However, it is not clear to me what the difference from the 945 and 945 Express chipsets are (yet). Anand says he was using a "Unnamed 945G Yonah Motherboard". WTF? the 945 express lacks the integrated gma video card http://www.intel.com/design/chipsets/mobile/945_fam.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enthios Posted January 11, 2006 Share Posted January 11, 2006 I still may buy a MacBook Pro, but I wish they'd have bumped it up to 1680x1050. It still is just 1440 by 900. Agree. I've ordered mine though. Not too concerned about screen resolution becuase I'll be running it closed, with bluetooth keyboard and the 30" cinema display with 2560x1600... I'm sure a higher res model is just around the corner, however... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bofors Posted January 11, 2006 Share Posted January 11, 2006 (edited) I guess you meant to say "does NOT". Corrected. Wrong.http://developer.apple.com/documentation/M...-CH210-BCICICJH Wow, so Apple just updated the Univerisal Binary Guidlines yesterday too! The previous version, which I think was dated 12.9.05, said no support software that requires G4 or G5. Now it is just says G5. So what is the deal with Apple's "pro" applications or G5 for that matter? I mean, there is no difference in the G5 instruction set versus G4, right? I mean, one is tunes and optimizes for G5 differently but otherwise it takes exactly the same instructions, right? Likewise, Apple's "pro" apps only require a G4, right? So they should run, just slowly, on Rosetta? Does anyone know where to buy Core Duo chips? It looks like these are not publicaly availiable yet. When should we expect that to change? Is anybody selling a barebones 945 chipset / Core Duo box yet? So these Core Duo's are 65nm parts? Damm... Core Duo is supported by 945PM and 945GM chipsets. Core Duo and Core Solo use a Socket 479 platform, but due to pin arrangement and new chipset functions are not compatible with any previous Pentium M or Centrino Motherboard.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Core_Duo Edited January 11, 2006 by bofors Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cyrana Posted January 11, 2006 Share Posted January 11, 2006 (edited) It is 945PM yeah...too many threads. Although, it is obviously some sort of custom job to some extent...it does have EFI and not BIOS. Agree. I've ordered mine though. Not too concerned about screen resolution becuase I'll be running it closed, with bluetooth keyboard and the 30" cinema display with 2560x1600... I'm sure a higher res model is just around the corner, however... I honestly haven't checked... so the MBP has dual-link DVI? The iMac can only ouput for the 23" ACD unfortunately (but the last models couldn't even do that), but it has a different logic board than the MBP even though the specs are similar. *checked* Yeah, thankfully they still have dual-link DVI. I'd also be using an external display a lot. Oh, I have conditiona approval on buying one, but still have to wait for my tax return, so that means the end of next month for me most likely. Edited January 11, 2006 by cyrana Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest terry Posted January 11, 2006 Share Posted January 11, 2006 Yes Myzar, I just look at that article again and notice that 945 was mentioned. However, it is not clear to me what the difference from the 945 and 945 Express chipsets are (yet). There is no "945", they're all called "945 Express". But you may truncate it to 945 if you like. Anand says he was using a "Unnamed 945G Yonah Motherboard". WTF? Probably some engineering samples like these ones: http://www.computerbase.de/bild/news/11672/3/ http://www.computerbase.de/bild/news/11672/2/ http://www.computerbase.de/bild/news/11672/1/ ("SECRET".) the 945 express lacks the integrated gma video card Nope. And, please, stop posting such utter nonsense. Read the page you're posting and find out that you're actually comparing the 945GM "Express" with the 945PM "Express". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
myzar Posted January 11, 2006 Share Posted January 11, 2006 There is no "945", they're all called "945 Express". But you may truncate it to 945 if you like. Probably some engineering samples like these ones: http://www.computerbase.de/bild/news/11672/3/ http://www.computerbase.de/bild/news/11672/2/ http://www.computerbase.de/bild/news/11672/1/ ("SECRET".) Nope. And, please, stop posting such utter nonsense. Read the page you're posting and find out that you're actually comparing the 945GM "Express" with the 945PM "Express". well whatever you want to call it , it's still the 945pm like cyrana said. I doubt it's a custom chipset built for apple, yes it has efi but vista is supposed to use efi too and fallback to the old pc bios http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/platf...re/default.mspx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cyrana Posted January 11, 2006 Share Posted January 11, 2006 Just another quickie... Firewire target disk mode is alive and well on the new machines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bofors Posted January 11, 2006 Share Posted January 11, 2006 I doubt it's a custom chipset built for apple... Is anyone suggesting that the chipsets Apple is using are custom? Firewire 400 is supposed to be supported with a seperate chip, right? What is the word on TPM? Someone at MWSF posted in ArsTechnica that an Apple rep refused to discuss DRM on the new machines. http://episteme.arstechnica.com/groupee/fo.../m/711002817731 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ataxy Posted January 11, 2006 Share Posted January 11, 2006 just a question since it uses EFI and lets say current Bios mobo wont work, i still guess that emulator like vmware or vpc will be able to emulate EFI since EFI is made to run true X86 instruction, no, just asking Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
myzar Posted January 11, 2006 Share Posted January 11, 2006 Is anyone suggesting that the chipsets Apple is using are custom? Firewire 400 is supposed to be supported with a seperate chip, right? What is the word on TPM? Someone at MWSF posted in ArsTechnica that an Apple rep refused to discuss DRM on the new machines. http://episteme.arstechnica.com/groupee/fo.../m/711002817731 well Efi alone is a good roadblock to stop people running it on generic x86 hardware considering that there aren't motherboards supporting efi yet. it will need efi emulation and a custom loader , maybe it will be possible to use bits from opendarwin to bybass efi , no one knows yet it's only speculation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bofors Posted January 11, 2006 Share Posted January 11, 2006 (edited) it will need efi emulation and a custom loader , maybe it will be possible to use bits from opendarwin to bybass efi , no one knows yet it's only speculation More speculation here too, I really know nothing about EFI or BIOS loaders and such. I have read, I think at ArsTechnica, that there is a Linux EFI loader that could be adopted to BIOS for this to work. I do not think EFI needs to be emulated, but perhaps Rosetta or WindowServer checks for EFI on the motherboard as part of the DRM scheme and that mechanism will have to be "explored". I mean, it seems obvioius that Apple would try to raise the EFI/BIOS hardware barrier to "secure" OSx86. Assuming that Apple will not release anymore BIOS'd version OSx86, which is increasing looking likely, I think the easiest solution will be to build a composite 10.4.4 with the pieces from previous versions of BIOS'd OSx86. One more thing... Does anybody expect problems using the ATI x1600 driver on 10.4.3? Edited January 11, 2006 by bofors Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
autoy Posted January 11, 2006 Share Posted January 11, 2006 Mmm... as i have understood reading some EFI info all drivers handled in an EFI OS make their calls directly to the EFI, which then comunicates with the hardware's firmware. If this is true, no driver in osx will be compatible in a BIOS enviroment, unless they find some virtual EFI that handles those calls... or something. This is gonna be a hard nut to crack... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cyrana Posted January 11, 2006 Share Posted January 11, 2006 I haven't checked the info on Apple's site. Did they break the ABI again for 10.4.4? It would almost make sense for them to do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jchowland Posted January 11, 2006 Share Posted January 11, 2006 Where Apple is smart at the moment, is that it's releasing only IMac and Macbook variants with intel chips. That means that it currently only has to support certain hardware (im thinking video cards). When the time comes, they'll probably relase a PowerMac tower (how can they change that... MacMac?) which has a kick ass video card so they can say... "let's not have to write previous kexts for old devices - nobody would want to downgrade, and they'll just write for newer cards." That's what is probably keeping them at the moment - lack of wide video card support for PowerMac/MacMacs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bjr1028 Posted January 11, 2006 Share Posted January 11, 2006 Since the word centrino appears nowhere, I find it very possible that Apple is using custom chipsets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Takuro Posted January 12, 2006 Share Posted January 12, 2006 ............................................ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moidsch.com Posted January 12, 2006 Share Posted January 12, 2006 Wouldn't EFI be a issue to previous owners who want to upgrade? And if the EFI is the only roadblock, wouldn't it be down when the manufacturers start offering new MoBos with EFI support? Do you think it will take that long before it does so? Maybe I'm not getting it straight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yoyo Posted January 12, 2006 Share Posted January 12, 2006 (edited) I've read this from a Thinksecret comment: http://www.thinksecret.com/comments/0601expo2.shtml Matt Thomas wrote on Jan 12, 2006 at 00:22: Regarding the Firewire 800 port... I believe the permanent installation of the iSight camera, a Firewire 400 device, is the reason that the firewire 800 port is missing. All powermacs and powerbooks with firewire 800 ports actually use the same bus for the Firewire 400 ports as well. The ports look different but work as a single bus. A firewire bus is only as fast as the slowest device on the bus. This means that if you have a FW800 device connected at the same time as you have a FW400 device, the speed of the FW800 device will be throttled down to FW400. This is a real problem if you connect certain DV camcorders which actually use Firewire100, limiting your hard drive performance to only 100mbits while the camera is connected. Apple has a Tech note to confirm this. Now, since the iSight can't be disconnected, the bus will always run at FW400 speed, regardless of what faster devices one might connect to a FW800 port. There would be no performance benefit at all when using FW800 devices. If you understand this, it makes perfect sense that Apple dropped the port. I also think this is why the new iMacs don't have FW800. It's the iSight! I do however wish that Apple included at least one Port Replicating SATA 2 port in place of of the FW800 port for using RAID arrays. Every serious multimedia content creator I know uses array storage." ------------------------------ I think, Apple has used a board from a nother company. I haven't seen any PC board with built-in FW800 support. So the question for me now is: who will fit their needs for custom motherboards? This release has only sense with the fact that they needed a shot in the market. Does anyone know any spec from the board??? Edited January 12, 2006 by yoyo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enthios Posted January 12, 2006 Share Posted January 12, 2006 Would you like to speak a bit more about array storage? I'm considering a 500GB array for my photos and would like to have it connected to my PowerBook. I do however wish that Apple included at least one Port Replicating SATA 2 port in place of of the FW800 port for using RAID arrays. Every serious multimedia content creator I know uses array storage." What raid setup do you recommend for someone using a PowerBook (and soon, MBP)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest terry Posted January 12, 2006 Share Posted January 12, 2006 I've read this from a Thinksecret comment: [snipped] The camera could also be connected via USB, which I regard as much more likely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swad Posted January 12, 2006 Author Share Posted January 12, 2006 Has anyone actually bought an iMac yet? First person to get one wins a prize (well, not really). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bofors Posted January 12, 2006 Share Posted January 12, 2006 (edited) Since people (yoyo, enthios) are talking about RAID here.... What is the story with setting up SATA RAID in OSx86 with Disk Utility on some Intel D915/D945 series motherboard that supports 4 SATA drive? As opposed to the PowerMac G5, which has dual SATA controllers, these boards only have a single controller, right? Or are these supposed to be four seperate channels, each at 150-MBps? I have gone through the Hardware Compatibility Lists and forums to search for information and still have not found anything conclusive, excpet that they are numerous suggestions that RAID does not work. I can not really understand why though. Do anyone know more? Edited January 12, 2006 by bofors Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrJägermeister Posted January 12, 2006 Share Posted January 12, 2006 Since people (yoyo, enthios) are talking about RAID here.... What is the story with setting up SATA RAID in OSx86 with Disk Utility on some Intel D915/D945 series motherboard that supports 4 SATA drive? As opposed to the PowerMac G5, which has dual SATA controllers, these boards only have a single controller, right? I have gone through the Hardware Compatibility Lists and forums to search for information and still have not found anything conclusive, excpet that they are numerous suggestions that RAID does not work. I can not really understand why though. Do anyone know more? Because these are cheap soft raid controlers witch need a driver. Hardware raid controler like adaptec or 3ware are very expensive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bofors Posted January 12, 2006 Share Posted January 12, 2006 (edited) Because these are cheap soft raid controlers witch need a driver.Hardware raid controler like adaptec or 3ware are very expensive. Hey, thanks for the information. But I guess this raises two questions: (1) There is no RAID controller chip on any of these motherboards, right? OS X handles the RAID itself, right? So why would "soft" RAID functionality needs drivers? I mean, we know the SATA controllers work, so what is the problem with RAID? Have you or do you know somebody who has actually tried SATA RAID on OSx86? (2) I just looked through both Adaptec's and 3ware's RAID controllers and it looks like they all require drivers, so what am I missing here? Are there really some driverless hardware RAID controller cards that would work on OSx86 or what? Edited January 12, 2006 by bofors Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sheepdog43 Posted January 12, 2006 Share Posted January 12, 2006 You guys can compare comparable hardware, talk about Apple quality, or even supply/demand. It is wrong. First off, 4 times faster, bull___ , take a look at some benchmarks by people here. It is definately not 4 times faster. Granted this is 10.4.4, but, how much increase have awe seen so far from previous builds? Not much. Second, reports are coming in that it is unable to even play full screen videos without dropping frames. We all know this is still not ready for prime time. It is fairly obvious. Apple really needs to educate people as to what will and will not run on this. We know most stuff will not work. Lastly, Apple needs to convince people it is going to work, and be a better alternative to the G4. How many years have we heard how much better the PPC processors were. Yes, it was a lot of B.S., but still, their marketing did just do a sudden 180, there are a lot of PPC guys are still ticked they even switched. They need restore/build customers faith, which I doubt this laptop can do. Scary part, is what if it backfires. Apple is stuck. Sure, I would love an X86 Apple notebook, but if I were to buy a new Apple laptop today, it sure as hell would not be that P.O.S. It is unproven, un-tested, and we know it is not all that fast. I woudl MUCH rather buy a cheap Dell and put OSX on it. Cheap, yes, but capable of running XP on it right now. Right now, the ONLY drawback is a lack of support from Apple. Big deal, how far have we gotten already? Seriously, ignore the cost, ignore the fact that it is cool and trendy, and step back and look at the bgger picture. That thing was rushed, SERIOUSLY. Why do you think it is not very different from the old ones. Why do you think it is only one model. These are holdovers untill they can re-do the entire line properly. Sad part is, I think we have ourselves to blame. I think we pushed them. On the other hand, I think Apple should not have made the announcement so early either. Anyone buying this thing, beware to be faced with LOTS of issues. I expect this to be Apples worst laptop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts