Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Technology (Apple) Businesses Apple Technology

Apple Moves to All Dual-Processor Power Mac Lineup 443

Posted by Zonk
from the twice-the-fun dept.
Jason Siegel writes "Apple will no longer be selling single-processor Power Mac computers, according to GeekInformed. The company has officially dropped 1.8 GHz G5s from their lineup to pave the way for exclusively dual-processor Power Macs. The systems will range from dual 2 to 2.7 GHz G5s. This is the first significant announcement since the Worldwide Developers Conference declaration that Apple will transition away from PowerPC to Intel chips."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Apple Moves to All Dual-Processor Power Mac Lineup

Comments Filter:
  • Why upgrade now? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by fembots (753724) on Tuesday June 21, 2005 @03:50PM (#12875827) Homepage
    Apple released a statement last month that the company would be transitioning away from IBM's PowerPC CPU's in favor of Intel's microprocessors. The shift to the new processors, however, will not begin until the first part of next year.

    So who would buy dual PowerPC CPU now, knowing a major shift is happening in less than a year's time?
    • People who need one? People who will get a return on their investment by buying a new PowerMac this year?
    • by LiquidCoooled (634315) on Tuesday June 21, 2005 @03:53PM (#12875853) Homepage Journal
      People who need a mac will buy a mac.

      It doesn't matter about the innards changing any more than it matters whether McDonalds uses fresh chicken nowadays.
      If people want it, they will buy it.
      • by TrippTDF (513419) <hilandNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Tuesday June 21, 2005 @03:59PM (#12875926)
        To elaborate:

        The idea that people will wait for the next, better model that is right around the corner is outdated at this point. A speed boost to a computer means less today (in my opinion) than it did 5 or 10 years ago.

        The transition to Intel is going to rock the Industry, but is it going to mean all that much in terms of the actual computers? I don't think so. Yes, it will mean they will get faster proscessors , but I don't think it will be so significant that holding out for a year on old hardware makes a good business descion.
        • Faster? Dual G5s are going to smoke any Intel Apple releases from what I'm seeing. If folks want power, go ahead and get it. G5s aren't going to be completely phased out even after they release and I suspect all of the high powered machines will stay G5 for a while. People that want/need a dual processor 64bit solution, will buy a G5 dual processor 64bit solution.
    • by Nexx (75873)
      Sods like me who waited too long? :)
    • by piecewise (169377) on Tuesday June 21, 2005 @03:55PM (#12875883) Journal
      Uh... Because most people, especially professionals (and more so professionals whose companies pay for the equipment), don't like waiting an additional YEAR for a product they use every day, most notably when a lease term says you can have new equipment anyway.

      The whole idea that announcing a transition will destroy Apple's market share is just stupid.

      I won't be eating crow in a year, either.
      • Got two at work, they are buying their last MACs this year. Neither will touch Intel for reasons either right or wrong - I don't care.

        So there is still appeal in the Power line to some of the more fanatical buyers out there.

        As for the transition destroying Apple's market share I think it was done for the exact opposite reason - to generate marketshare. The switch to Intel will generate a lot of interest among both Apple and non-Apple users. However what its real focus is is to make existing owners of o
    • by Zo0ok (209803)
      iBooks and PowerBooks will come within a year. The G5:s will be substituted in two years. If you want a PowerMac isn't a bit tough to wait two years?

      This is of course just me guessing, but naturally they will start switch the G4s to Intel.
    • by Mistah Blue (519779) on Tuesday June 21, 2005 @03:56PM (#12875892)

      Because they are still good machines and will be supported for a long time. Why hold your needs hostage if those machines solve them now? I don't know about you, but I wouldn't want to make a switch to the Mac line on rev 1 of the Macintel machines. I just switched to a PB 15" in Feb. and am actually pleased that I just did it as opposed to a year or two ago.

      Had I switched a year or two ago, I would be at my normal refresh point when the new Macintel machines start coming out and would feel a little internal pressure that might cause me to blaze a trail on the first rev of the new line. Having just switched, that isn't going to be a problem for me.

      I find it interesting that people allow things like this to hold up buying decisions. The fact is there are always technology shifts going on. Why not get a PowerPC now if you need it, and then you can jump in to the Macintel waters on your own timescale?

    • by MustardMan (52102) on Tuesday June 21, 2005 @03:56PM (#12875898)
      Who would buy a Dell computer now, knowing much faster systems will be available in less than a year's time?

      This question has really bugged me every time I have heard it since the announcement. I just bought a dual G5 machine and don't regret it at all. I needed a new computer, picked out the one that best suited my needs, and brought it home. It's one thing to wait for a month or two if there's a major revision around the corner, but I see no reason at all to change your purchase decisions based on something that's going to START coming out in a year.

      With the ease of x-code's fat binaries, there's very little incentive for a developer to write programs that will only run on intel macs, so why get all bent out of shape about buying a machine now?

      Wait, now that you mention it, I'm not going to buy any machine right now, because I'm afraid it might not run Duke Nukem: Forever when it comes out.
      • i agree, if building fat binaries is truly as easy as they say it is, i think people who buy current macs are gonna be fine for several years to come, especially as far as major software packages go.

        perhaps the odd app here and there will be incompatible, but at the same time, there does exist a very wide range of unique PPC apps currently that likely will never make their way to Intel.

        • Re:Why upgrade now? (Score:5, Interesting)

          by Golias (176380) on Tuesday June 21, 2005 @04:12PM (#12876046)
          perhaps the odd app here and there will be incompatible, but at the same time, there does exist a very wide range of unique PPC apps currently that likely will never make their way to Intel.

          I'll even put on my Carnac hat and break it down for you:

          1. There will probably be a native WINE port for OS X within months of the first Mac-on-Intel release which will not run on the G5. This will allow the running of various Windows apps without rebooting or even leaving the OS X desktop. Geeks will love the fact that damn near all Windows and Linux software will in CPU-native mode within OS X, but old-school Mac heads probably won't care much.

          2. It has already been announced that the Intel Macs will never be capable of running "Classic" applications. Fans of old Mac programs like Quark will be all a-tizzy about squeezing maximum life out of the remaining G5 systems, but nobody else will care.

          Pretty much everything else is likely to work just fine on either platform.
        • They really are that easy. If your code is even remotely well written (i.e. doesn't rely on undefined behavior, doesn't make endian assumptions, etc.), it literally is as simple as "a check box and a few tweaks" ... just like it was on Next.
      • Who would buy cars now knowing that inter-planetary time machines will be made in the future? Only fools!
      • Who would buy a Dell computer now, knowing much faster systems will be available in less than a year's time?

        Most people a 399 Dell with a P4 is good enough to play World of Warcraft. Apple has never been the cheap platform.

        But I have a dual G4, I'm perfectly happy with it, and wont upgrade until the X86 boxes come out. Id rather spend my money on my AMD 64 machine for gaming first. The Dual G4 is a work box, damn fast and stable, just not games.

        So ya, an Apple X86 box that dual boots for games, and O
    • Re:Why upgrade now? (Score:4, Informative)

      by Princeofcups (150855) <john@princeofcups.com> on Tuesday June 21, 2005 @03:59PM (#12875927) Homepage

      Me, in about a half hour. I'm picking up a dual 2.7GHz and 23" display at the Apple Store.

      1 - I'll be able to resell it for 50%+ of the cost.

      2 - I can keep the monitor when I get a new Intel system.

      3 - Although many apps will be fat by the rollout of the new machines, many will only work on the PPC.

      I figure an upgrade to Intel in about three years. I see no hurry to rush onto the bleeding edge of new technology.

      jfs

    • Re:Why upgrade now? (Score:4, Informative)

      by MoonBuggy (611105) on Tuesday June 21, 2005 @04:03PM (#12875959) Journal
      I may be mistaken, but didn't they announce they were switching the low end manchines first? They also said the switch would be completed by 2007, which means there won't be a machine to match a dual 2.7GHz G5 for a good two years yet (assuming they _do_ complete on time). While Macs do tend to outlive PCs, two years of use minimum plus a decent resale value isn't too bad a deal if you need a machine any time soon, and it will be supported for longer if you don't feel a need for the latest and greatest. Not a great deal, but not too bad.

      Also it's a nice number cruncher in its own right - Linux PPC will be around for a long time yet so it's not like the machine dies when OSX support drops. Like I said, you won't get the greatest value by buying now but it's not an all round bad idea either.
    • Just because it isn't sold anymore doesn't mean it isn't supported anymore. Apple and third party companies tend to support the previous machines for many years. I bought a dual G5 a few months ago and I don't regret it even after the announcement. New software for the PowerPC systems will probably still be developed for five years given that it is so simple to develop a cross-platform binary, and that Mac users tend to keep their systems for longer than most people, even the G3 PowerMacs are still suppo
    • Re:PPC Software (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Macrat (638047)
      I'll be sure to upgrade with the last PowerMac PPC's sold because I know all my Mac apps will still run on it. Contrary to Apple's claims of a simply recompile, many software packages are going to need a lot of rework to run on Mac Intel boxes.
    • The shift to the new processors, ... will not begin until the first part of next year.

      So, why upgrade now?

      Well, if you're buying a new machine every year or so anyway, you don't care that these are the last of the Powermacs, and that you will soon be stuck with an orphan.

      If you aren't buying a new, top of the line Mac every year or so, just because, then you've got good reason to wait a year or so, while they shake the bugs out of the new offerings.

      Apple probably figured out that the early annou

    • by Leroy_Brown242 (683141) on Tuesday June 21, 2005 @04:10PM (#12876021) Homepage Journal
      Insurance.

      If the next stuff sucks, or is lacking in any way, it'll be nice to have the last of the good stuff.
    • I read some interesting conspiracy theories on a board somewhere shortly after the keynote.

      This theorist postulated that the root of the switch is not a result of speed deficiencies or cloudy roadmaps from IBM, but rather based on the lack of hardware-level copy protection in the PowerPC. The poster noted that the Pentium has several levels of hardware DRM and that the content providers (record and movie companies) were demanding more secure DRM.

      Any truth to this? Have y'all heard anything? If it turns
    • by amichalo (132545) on Tuesday June 21, 2005 @04:20PM (#12876110)
      I just bought a new iMac on Saturday for the following reasons:
      (1) I needed to upgrade
      (2) The iMac line was just upgraded last month
      (3) PowerPC software will continue to be produced for years
      (4) The first Intel boxes from Apple will be 12 months from now
      (5) The first Intel boxed from Apple will not be iMacs (for a variety of reasons)
      (6) I would rather be the last to own the PowerPC iMac than the first to own the Intel one.
      (7) After using Macs for four years, I have never been disatisfied and don't see any reason I would be with the iMac G5
    • So who would buy dual PowerPC CPU now, knowing a major shift is happening in less than a year's time?

      Someone who wanted software stability for the next few years? The new Intel boxes are not magically going to run all current software with 100% success. Universal binaries will be shipped by 99% of the Mac software vendors for years to come as only an idiot would cut off half his customers for no reason. It's not like they have to ship an Intel and a PPC version apart, it's all bundled as one.

      Furthermo
  • I don't know how much G5 parts Apple's got in their warehouse, but surely this move is to clear their existing inventory to make way for x86?
    • Hey, if they're dropping prices, I'm dropped Benjamins.
    • no (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Surely not, given that the first Intel Macintosh won't be released until mid-2006.
    • Doubt it (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Joshua53077 (849570) on Tuesday June 21, 2005 @04:07PM (#12875996)
      My guess is that the single processor G5 had a similar price point to the iMac, which has similar specs, plus a built in LCD. MacMall lists the 1.8 Ghz power mac at $1495 and for the same price they offer a 2 Ghz iMac. My feeling is that they want to keep the lines between the iMac and the Power Mac pretty clear to eliminate customer confusion. Plus, dual processor Power Macs have been available for about 4 years and there have been several times that they've only been available in dual processor configurations. I wouldn't read much into it and I think its too early to start thinking about clearing inventory of Power PC chips. Remember that the high end chips are rumored to be transititioned in late 06.
    • by Jozer99 (693146) on Tuesday June 21, 2005 @04:23PM (#12876131)
      G5 to x86 converstion will begin in the middle of 2006, and end in 2008. Somehow I doubt Apple keeps a three year supply of processors on hand. The Powermac series will be one of the last to go x86. One of the main reasons for the switch was because Apple was frustrated with a lack of a G5 for notebooks. The G4 processor is now quite outdated. First the notebooks will go x86, then the budget desktops; Mac Mini and iMac, and lastly the Powermac and XServe. The computers that already have G5s are not in desparate need of a new processor, unlike the lower end stuff and portable equiptment.
    • The PowerMac won't be moving to Intel until 2007, so it's unlikely this has anything to do with the Intel move. Also, to clear existing inventory, you don't drop the product, you make the product cheaper, so either way, I doubt it.
  • Here's a question, and my apologies if it's been asked and answered before. Will Apple stay the dual-processor course when they move to Intel? I don't mean dual core Pentiums. I mean two slabs of silicon, like a dual Xeon setup. And with Intel moving more and more to dual-core across the lines... Dual core, dual processor, OS/X... Dang.

    Then again, who knows where desktop Linux will be in 16 months with the Mandrake/Connectiva/Lycoris mergers, the rise of Ubuntu... And think of that on dual core, dual processor... ohhh... Someone get me a tissue!

    Regardless, next year's going to be interesting if you're in the market for a new box. :-)

    - Greg

    • Wouldn't Apple be much better off using dual-core Opterons than a pair of Xeon CPUs?
    • Well they certainly give up their "We are on 64 bit" chant. Seeing has Conroe and Yonah are both M-based archs, apple is going nowhere.

      Say hello to PXE boys!
      I'm off to buy myself an Opteron.
    • There is disputable evidence that points to Apple's interest in supporting more than 2 processors. Take for example image [macrumors.com] which depicts two screen captures of an Apple system utility. The top one is an other version which was replaced with the bottom image that depicts an N+1 approach to processor display rather than the previous versions 1 or 2.

      Certainly not an open and shut case.

      Other ramblings and rumors came in the form of a January 2005 4 processor Xserve for research institutions. This never materia
      • "Still, there were rumors that the keynote announcing the Intel deal, which included a demo on a PowerMac, was in fact powered by a quad-Pentium powered box. Were these the musings of a frantic fanbase or real facts? Impossible for me to say."

        I really doubt this. Most of the demo things that Steve Jobs showed on the Pentium were things that wouldn't necessarily have benefitted much from multiple CPUs. The execution speed for the tasks he did certainly seems in line with what a Pentium 4 3.6GHz running Wind
      • by Skirwan (244615) <skerwin@ m a c .com> on Tuesday June 21, 2005 @04:38PM (#12876235) Homepage
        ...rumors that the keynote announcing the Intel deal, which included a demo on a PowerMac, was in fact powered by a quad-Pentium powered box.
        The 'about' window was trying to say that it was a Pentium 4, not there were four Pentiums. The formatting may have been a bit confusing for some folks.
    • Will Apple stay the dual-processor course when they move to Intel? I don't mean dual core Pentiums. I mean two slabs of silicon, like a dual Xeon setup.

      I hope Apple does stay with the Dual-CPU theme they've been sticking with for their high end systems. I'm sure you could get just as much power out of a dual core system, but one thing that's appealed to me about Macs is that they are different. Computers aren't exactly appliances any more for a lot of people, they're being treated a lot like how cars a
    • According to CNET, the transition will begin with the low end in 2006.

      My assumption is that small form factor systems like the Mac Mini, and the laptops that are stuck with G4's, will go with Pentium M processors.

      After all, Apple said they are going with Intel for performance per watt, and the only current Intel processor that gets that is the Pentium M.

      The PowerMacs will stay with PowerPC processors for a while and will probably be the last to switch, because you don't really care about the performance
  • Is this how it is going to be from now on? Any time Apple changes a model, drops a speed, or something it's going to be attributed to Intel?

    The 1.8GHz was an expensive system for no more than it offered, especially compared to an iMac. You started around $1899 and then had to buy a monitor and it wasn't any faster than an iMac based on reader reports.

    So it makes sense to remove single proc models from the lineup with dual proc models available.
    • It was my understanding that when Apple re-released the single-processor PMac 1.8, they used the iMac G5s in that it had a 1/3-speed FSB. (1.8 GHz = 600 FSB) whereas historically PMac's have had 1/2-speed FSBs.

    • "Is this how it is going to be from now on? Any time Apple changes a model, drops a speed, or something it's going to be attributed to Intel?"

      Well I guess once they've switched to Intel CPUs that will certainly seem fair. :-)

      But yeah, I agree. The single-CPU 1.8GHz model was a lame duck. The 1.8GHz G5 iMac was coming in cheaper, LCD screen included. They had to do something to shore up the bottom end of the PowerMac series regardless.

  • Why would Apple be so focused on only selling uberpowerful models? Not to ruffle any feathers, but isn't the primary audience Apple's trying to grab onto right now the average user? Why would Joe Average need a dual processor mac to surf the web and do his taxes on?
  • by WatertonMan (550706) on Tuesday June 21, 2005 @03:52PM (#12875849)
    OK. I love Macs. I'm terribly interested in the future of the platform. But come on. Half the Apple stories the last few months haven't been news at all. This one certainly isn't. I bring this up because I kind of worry about the Mac losing it's nice Karma due to some of the silly hyping of the platform.
  • Getting developers prepared for a multi-core world that's going to be up and coming in the next generation of processors. Can't avoid it so you may as well embrace it. Especially with Apple's focus on "use our toolkits, we'll vectorize (or maybe they mean parallelize in general) it for you."
  • by tverbeek (457094) on Tuesday June 21, 2005 @03:54PM (#12875868) Homepage
    This move is good for more clearly differentiating Apple's product lines. Now there's a clear difference between a PowerMac and an iMac: the former have two processors. (And the clear difference between a PowerBook and an iBook is that the former are silver-colored.)
  • Just wondering,

    If I had a choice between a PowerMac with G5 2.7 GHz or Pentium 4 3.6 GHz, which is faster?

    I would guess they're both about the same -- but I don't really know -- and Apple wants Intel more for the Pent M processor for their PowerBooks rather than desktops.

    Sam

    • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 21, 2005 @03:57PM (#12875901)
      If you use Photoshop: G5
      If you use anything else: P4
      If you run spyware: G5
    • Re:G5 vs P4 ? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by fimbulvetr (598306) on Tuesday June 21, 2005 @04:11PM (#12876033)
      The opteron would be faster in about everything. Cheaper too.

      clicky [anandtech.com]
    • Re:G5 vs P4 ? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by forkazoo (138186) <wrosecrans&gmail,com> on Tuesday June 21, 2005 @04:13PM (#12876054) Homepage
      I am almost tempted to wonder if this is a troll. Is there really anybody left who doesn't understand that this isn't a useful question?

      What do you want to do? The G5 will be excellent at some things. The P4 at others. Some server apps which use lots of system calls, thread management, and such will be hampered by the architecture of Mac OS X. Some compute intensive apps will run incredibly well on the G5 compared to the P4. If you want to use Final Cut Pro, the G5 will run it faster, and if you want to run XSI, the P4 will be faster, because you would have to run under emulation to try and run FCP on a P4 or XSI on a G5.

      Anand Tech recently did some benchmarks, which you may find interesting.

      Are you planning on running your own code? I quite like the XCode IDE because it uses gcc as a backend. Is all your legacy code MSVCPP MFC projects? Then it will be more hassle to get it running on the G5.

      So, yeah, it all depends. I use an iBookG4 as my primary system, because it is fast enough for 90% f what I do. It's light, it's portable, it has UNIX guts and a top notch UI. My secondary system is my Athlon64 with Nvidia GFX. It's big, it's fast, I have to turn it on with my car key, the GUI is adequate, and it runs lightwave almost fast enough. (Just need it to be about 10-100 times faster, like always). It's got four fans, and it is noisy. I wouldn't dream of getting rid of either.
  • So they're clearly reducing buyer's choices in scaling back the number of lines supported. Sounds like buyers now have the choices of Cheap (MiniMac) or Expensive (dual processor G5).

    Must have run out of single-processor MBs and don't want to make more since the other reason (converting lines over to Intel manufacture) wouldn't seem likely given that the processors Apple intends to use aren't available from Intel yet.

    I can't see how any of this is going to increase their marketshare any.

    • by Anonymous Coward
      now have the choices of Cheap (MiniMac) or Expensive

      do you feel silly once you realise there's the eMac and iMac in between?

    • Do you realize that the only important differences between the discontinued single-processor PowerMac and the iMac G5 are that the iMac is faster, has a screen, and costs less? No one in their right mind would pick that PowerMac over the iMac anyway, so it was redundant.
  • by Sv-Manowar (772313) on Tuesday June 21, 2005 @04:01PM (#12875947) Homepage Journal
    With the impending move to x86 architecture, this could be Apple posturing to encourage developers to work on the SMP capabilities of their programs. Intel's chips obviously feature things like HyperThreading and dual cores, making extracting the best possible performance require good SMP code. Obviously by phasing out the idea of a non-SMP 'Power' mac, Apple can encourage developers of scientific, processing and even mainstream applications (to an extent) to take better notice and make better use of SMP capable systems.
  • I guess they have to find SOME way of burning through those chips now that no one will be investing in an architecture that's been EOLed
  • Orphan Machines? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Greyfox (87712) on Tuesday June 21, 2005 @04:04PM (#12875969) Homepage Journal
    Surely once Apple moves away from the PPC architecture, the developers will not continue developing software for the platform, will they? Will Apple provide an emulator so you can run X86 binaries on that spiffy PPC Mac you bought today? Wouldn't it be a performance hit to run programs that way?
    • Short answer: no, once a project is ready for x86, it'll still compile for PPC.

      Long answer: The APIs for OS X development (Cocoa and Carbon) are not changing, so no, there is no reason developers will (or should) ever decide to build only one set of binaries for x86 without building binaries for PPC at the same time. The default will always be to build a Universal Binary containing native binaries for both platforms.

    • by SuperKendall (25149) * on Tuesday June 21, 2005 @04:17PM (#12876087)
      Surely once Apple moves away from the PPC architecture, the developers will not continue developing software for the platform, will they?

      Well I don't know, if you were writing software would you prefer to sell to 10 million people or one million? That's the kind of question you are asking.

      Furthermore the dev tool (XCode) makes it super-easy to build universal binaries - it's not like you have to ship an Intel version and a PPC version. They are all bundled as one "App". That's the handy thing abou tmaking applications really directories in hiding. So if you have something that works now you just need to make sure it can also work on Intel and then you can ship universal binaries in perpituity.

      It's the new Intel macs where the situation will look a little sketchy the first year or so. The current PPC macs are going to see universal binaries for something like 99% of apps for several years just for marketshare reasons alone. I do think that after a short time some games may be Intel only, but since when have you bought a Mac because of game support? :-)
  • Worry (Score:3, Interesting)

    by renelicious (450403) on Tuesday June 21, 2005 @04:07PM (#12876000)
    I think my biggest concern is that Apple will make the shift to Intel and then shortly after IBM gets their productions ramped up. Apple decides to continue to produce G5 Macs and then after 6 months or so drops Intel altogether. Then those few that bought x86 systems become the bastard children that Apple wants to forget.

    I just don't see what would keep them on Intel if IBM could start performing. They have always seemed to like to have the niche of a different architecture. I'm a little wary of the whole thing.
    • Re:Worry (Score:3, Interesting)

      by narratorDan (137402)
      Thought game, how many chips can you run Linux on? How much difference is there between ports of the same distro targeting different chips?
      As one who lived through the shift from the 680x0 line to the PPC line, I remember the many headaches but I also remember how surprisingly smooth the shift was once all the developers were on the same game plan. I figure that IF IBM gets it's act together and is able to supply both the quantity and quality (read: chips faster than 2.5gHz ) of PPC chips that Apple wants
  • Dell moves to all 256+ MB RAM desktops...

    Seriously, is this really that big of an announcement?
  • Going Dual (Score:5, Funny)

    by WindFish (812433) on Tuesday June 21, 2005 @04:11PM (#12876029)
    We're still waiting on that dual-button mouse.
    • by Anonymous Coward
      Microsoft Intellimice work right out of the box. OS X support two button mice natively.
  • I would be really psyched to have a machine that could use both types of chips. It would certainly make OS X's transition smoother, and it would be great for embedded development for PPC. I used to have a DOS card (486) with an old 68040 and that was fun at the time (good for DOS Games that weren't ported to Mac)
  • At this time, increasing the speed of a chip is becoming very difficult becasue of cooling issues.

    So, If someone believes that CPU speed is getting close to the practical max for everyday user where does on go to get more power?
    more procs.

    More power on a computer does not equal faster procs, it equals how much work can get done in a given time frame.

    The bad news is, there are a ton of MultiThreaded applications that have been written withou taking into consideration of multi procs. well, not bad news for
  • platform cross (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Doc Ruby (173196) on Tuesday June 21, 2005 @04:38PM (#12876232) Homepage Journal
    I'd love to see OSX become a *nix that takes advantage of any of a number of CPU configs. PPC/Intel, single/multi CPU... How about a multiCPU with both PPC and x86, that can run either instruction set's binaries natively? Put a 4PPC/4x86 headless VNC server in the rack, and never say "no" again to "does that app run on our machines?" As long as it's a *nix app, of course.

That does not compute.

Working...