[goodguy713]

Mac Pro Duo .... ? Mac Pro Trio ? Mac Pro Quadro...?

My thing is more than likely mind you i have no proof but im considering it being at least a quad processor why wouldnt they want to go backwards.. thats the only logical advancement in the new systems. i mean they already have the quadro .. name... and AMD is already Hard at work More than likely adding an upgraded quad X2 type processor set up... i mean seriously .. i might be wrong but wouldnt it make sence if they are going to keep competeing with apple well now intel...

[goodguy713]

Originally Posted by goodguy713 Mac Pro Duo .... ? Mac Pro Trio ? Mac Pro Quadro...? My thing is more than likely mind you i have no proof but im considering it being at least a quad processor why wouldnt they want to go backwards.. thats the only logical advancement in the new systems. i mean they already have the quadro .. name... and AMD is already Hard at work More than likely adding an upgraded quad X2 type processor set up... i mean seriously .. i might be wrong but wouldnt it make sence if they are going to keep competeing with apple well now intel...

Im adding this to add to my speculations look at the very bottom of this page... http://www.c627627.com/AMD/Athlon64/

[goodguy713]

Originally Posted by goodguy713 Im adding this to add to my speculations look at the very bottom of this page... http://www.c627627.com/AMD/Athlon64/

One last thing ... noseing about i found this... http://www.crn.com/sections/breaking...leId=173603233

im just wondering what intel is doing

[Robo]

*cough* Woodcrest *cough*

[goodguy713]

i dont follow the amd code names...

[Robo]

Or Intel codenames, apparently.

[oldmacfan]

Apple + AMD = Socket M2 at the earliest and not until 2007 or 2008. I would expect Pro and Servers only as an option cause Apple doesn't want to be in the law suit.

[ZachPruckowski]

Apple probably doesn't want to have two suppliers for their chips if they can avoid it. I think they are going to stick with Intel for a while, because they probably want to work on hardware lock-in. And that'd be harder to do if OSX has to work with too many chip types. If they limit it to working only with Intel chips somehow, they've cut off some hackers. My guess is that after 10.5, it will only work with 64-bit Intel chips. 10.5 will work with PPC and Yonah, but I imagine that 10.6 in a year or two will only work with Merom, Woodcrest, and whatever is coming in 2007 (haven't looked that far ahead on the roadmap).

[iDaver]

Originally Posted by ZachPruckowski My guess is that after 10.5, it will only work with 64-bit Intel chips. 10.5 will work with PPC and Yonah, but I imagine that 10.6 in a year or two will only work with Merom, Woodcrest, and whatever is coming in 2007 (haven't looked that far ahead on the roadmap).

Apple has never been that quick to abandon previous architectures. I would fully expect any new Mac OS in the next five years to run on a Mac I bought today.

[oldmacfan]

10.6 is at the earlist 30 months away. 10.5 is do late this year or early next. At this point I can't see 10.6 not supporting G5 PPC's.

[iDaver]

Originally Posted by oldmacfan 10.6 is at the earlist 30 months away. 10.5 is do late this year or early next. At this point I can't see 10.6 not supporting G5 PPC's.

I agree. ZachPruckowski was proposing that 10.6 wouldn't even run on yonah chips. In 60 months, or around five years it wouldn't surprise me if a new version of Mac OS X doesn't support PPCs, but I'd still expect it to run on a yonah.

[Baron Munchausen]

Originally Posted by iDaver I agree. ZachPruckowski was proposing that 10.6 wouldn't even run on yonah chips. In 60 months, or around five years it wouldn't surprise me if a new version of Mac OS X doesn't support PPCs, but I'd still expect it to run on a yonah.

I think it would remain on PPC for five or more years, if not longer. OSX has been running on Intel since the Public Beta, so they are geared up already for dual platform support. In 5 years who knows who or what is on the horizon? IBM Core chips, a totally different architecture from x86, which people see is now possible due to Rosetta, Universal Binary, virtualisation etc. even though it has always been possible but nobody dared try*.

* it is this mindset of Apple, the 'its the right way, so lets think how to do it properly' attitude that moves the art forward. Left to Wintel we would have x86 for the next decade IMHO. Apple moving to Intel and EFI may well be the trigger to finally break free from 20 years of architectural paralysis.

[Moogs]

New line of HD monitors and PowerMacIntels with the home page slogan "No Foolin'!"

[shell]

Um ...
a 17 MacBook Pro Quad?
an iMac featuring a plasma display? (partially to highlight their new plasma monitors)
really cool new iPod socks featuring Steve's shining face?

It's anybodies' guess. Oh, and by the way when he says that he doesn't know what's planned for the thirtieth anniversary - balderdash, he's just not telling us yet.

[qpeighty]

My guess would be the Power Macs (Mac Pro?) and Xserves (Mac Server?) will be updated to the Sossaman chips, the Core Duo verson of the server chip(Xeon replacement?), set to be released in Q1-2006

1.April is the begining of the 2ndQ time frame
2.Pro Apps Should be ported by March
3.Can be dual-dual core

info came from:endian.net

I don't claim too know their reliability, as they are only one of the first sites that poped up in a google search

Just my thoughts on this

qpeighty

[Baron Munchausen]

Thanks for that link qpeighty. Woodcrest (Workshed!) seems more likely than Conroe (Chainsaw!) for the TowerMac Pro's(tm). They need some bad-ass server chips to make Xserve compete and also to make a real naaaaasty Tower that people can buy over the counter - a real "Q" machine.

Who's laughing now?

[shell]

Maybe I'm way off base, but isn't Sossaman a 32-bit chip? I think they want to wait for the 64-bit Woodcrest, they'll also want to give 3rd party vendors more time to make the transition.

[bonzoa]

i know this one is getting a bit ridiculous... but anyone else have any feelings about the intel ceo showing up in a bunny suit? is this an easter reference?

[ZachPruckowski]

But Woodcrest isn't due until early 2007, and Steve Jobs wants this done by Xmas. Therefore, I see the new PowerMac (or MacTower, or ProMac, or whatever) being Conroe based for the first run.

[Robo]

I thought Woodcrest was due late this year...?

Conroe isn't multi-processor compatible, so unless Apple gets rid of the Quad "Mac Pro," they're going to have to use Woodcrest.

[qpeighty]

I don't think that the whole 32-bit vs. 64-bit would make a difference to Apple right now, the iMac for example, but since the Sossaman is a server based chip is Should, but not nessisarily, use desktop RAM.

As I see it the only thing that matters to Apple right know is that they get the newest of the intel chips into their computers a fast as possible, and upgrade them when the new chips become aviailable.

That said, and I may be wrong about this, the main reason for switching to 64-bit processors is to gain access to more than 4GB of RAM, with a dual core chip coulden't you potentually(sp?) use 8GB per Processor, 4GB per core, with 2 processors with 2 cores each couldn't mean that you could use 16GB of RAM, 4x 4GB.

As I said I could be wrong, if so please correct me.

qpeighty

[Baron Munchausen]

RAM: If the chip can only ('only'...?) address 4GB virtually, in registers and in the bus then you are in a corner. You would need to watch where each process is, otherwise you would have to hop from one physical bank of memory to another if a different CPU core took over a task.

The alternative is to pin a process with a CPU and then you get closer to the world of machine partitioning which is all fine and dandy in some cases (some web servers) but not for the desktop or media cruncher.

[f00fighters]

You guys... I found out what Steve Jobs is coming out with for Apple's 30th Anniversary. You're going to shi- your pants. He ANNOUNCED ..... that he is going to be releasing... the greatest Apple Invention of 2006 ... it's the wireless mighty mouse...hahaha. I couldn't contain myself. That would be nice though, wouldn't it? Sometimes it's the little things that count! I am just b.s-ing so there's no confusion.

[miniuser]

Gee I hope you're kidding. Talk about being totally UNDER WHELMED.

[goodguy713]

well due to some to recent events i have came to the conclusion that im a moron...
feeling silly i decided that i would do a little research and found among a few things this article http://www.tgdaily.com/2006/02/04/ap...screen_patent/

http://www.tgdaily.com/2006/02/04/ap...screen_patent/

hmmm at any rate I have decided that this seems to be a more of a plausable path considering that intel is coming out with a vista-based hand held mini computer's.

oh one more link this is to the actual patent office... and the documents describing the device or device's http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-...le+computer%22

[Brad]

goodguy713: That's already being discussed here.

Since this thread lacks any real focus, I'm closing it now.