Macbook Pro

Message

R!tman · Post by **R!tman** » Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:47 pm

For those of you who understand german:click

All others, the article says that windows can be installed on the macbook pro and apple does not care about it.

Btw, I liked the name "powerbook" much better than "macbook".

Lejban · Post by **Lejban** » Thu Jan 12, 2006 4:05 pm

R!tman wrote:Btw, I liked the name "powerbook" much better than "macbook".

But the removed the "power" inside

chaotician · Post by **chaotician** » Thu Jan 12, 2006 6:43 pm

finally got Gentoo up and kicking ass on my powerbook g3. Now this... Looks like I'll wait for second unit runs and then see about going for the Trifecta:

Gentoo
OSX
Vista

Tri-Boot - w00t!

Oh and the article quoted in German above references

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercuryn ... 602581.htm

Donpasquale · Post by **Donpasquale** » Fri Jan 13, 2006 9:20 am

I just read an article about the intel platform. It seems that the wireless card is wired via pci express inside. So the broadcom module will not work. Hopefully they will insert intels module which has or will have nice driver support under linux.

R!tman · Post by **R!tman** » Fri Jan 13, 2006 10:04 am

Donpasquale wrote:I just read an article about the intel platform. It seems that the wireless card is wired via pci express inside. So the broadcom module will not work. Hopefully they will insert intels module which has or will have nice driver support under linux.

Do you have a link to that report? I find it strange, that a poky wireless card gets connected to pci-express. Normal pci or USB2 would be more than enough, regarding speed at least.

Imagine, most raid controllers are still pci and they put some 100 MB/s through there. I doubt the latest airport extreme is capable of that

.

Donpasquale · Post by **Donpasquale** » Fri Jan 13, 2006 10:07 am

Its also on german and its a benchmark report of the new intel system. Heres the link: http://www.tomshardware.de/mobile/20060 ... ah-11.html

Evangelion · Post by **Evangelion** » Fri Jan 13, 2006 1:35 pm

gnomeza wrote:A few things to note about the new MacBook Pro (Ranked, as I see it, in order of importance):
No cardbus slot

There's an expresscard though

[*]No FW800

Do you use it? What do you use it for? External HD? That could use FW400 just as well. There are VERY few things that really need FW800. It seems to me that the people who complain about FW800 don't use it in the first place.

[*]No modem

By default, it's an BTO-option. I for one have no need for modem.

alhambra · Post by **alhambra** » Fri Jan 13, 2006 4:46 pm

what du you think abous the new macbookpro (http://www.apple.com/macbookpro/).
do you think it will be hard to get linux running on it or perhaps even windows?

Edit: Merged here. --Maedhros

pinger · Post by **pinger** » Fri Jan 13, 2006 5:18 pm

When are the first units going to be delivered?

Post by **pjp** » Fri Jan 13, 2006 5:42 pm

Lejban wrote:
R!tman wrote:Btw, I liked the name "powerbook" much better than "macbook".
But the removed the "power" inside

Apple used the name PowerBook before they used PPC chips, so it isn't directly related (though they may have assumed people would link the two).

Ian Goldby · Post by **Ian Goldby** » Fri Jan 13, 2006 5:51 pm

I'm also impressed by this new machine, although I would see OS X as the main attraction - so I don't understand why anyone would want one to run Linux on one unless it was to dual-boot with OS X. Especially as a lot of Linux applications now run natively on OS X anyway.

There's one thing that puzzles me about the MacBook though. I have heard that the processor used is 32 bit. I was under the impression that OS X was 64-bit native, and that Apple had essentially completed the migration to 64 bit a while ago.

Am I just misinformed, or is this MacBook just a stop-gap measure until Intel bring out a 64-bit version of the processor later in the year? Surely Apple wouldn't regress from 64 bit back to 32 bit?

R!tman · Post by **R!tman** » Fri Jan 13, 2006 6:31 pm

Ian Goldby wrote:I'm also impressed by this new machine, although I would see OS X as the main attraction - so I don't understand why anyone would want one to run Linux on one unless it was to dual-boot with OS X. Especially as a lot of Linux applications now run natively on OS X anyway.

Why would you run Linux on your Windows PC?
Ok, maybe some programs run on Mac OS, but it is still proprietary software, not open source. Don't underestimate the ethical issue here, for some this is a bit point.

Ian Goldby wrote:There's one thing that puzzles me about the MacBook though. I have heard that the processor used is 32 bit. I was under the impression that OS X was 64-bit native, and that Apple had essentially completed the migration to 64 bit a while ago.

Am I just misinformed, or is this MacBook just a stop-gap measure until Intel bring out a 64-bit version of the processor later in the year? Surely Apple wouldn't regress from 64 bit back to 32 bit?

Apple computer, unlike windows pcs, are available on many different architectures. Take a look at packages.gentoo.org. All architectures that begin with "ppc" are some sort of powerpc architecture, and some of those are 64bit. You will have to add x86 with the new releases now.

EDIT: Well, even "windows pcs" have evolved

. The available architectures are x86, amd64 and ia64, but I don't know anyone who uses ia64.

Ian Goldby · Post by **Ian Goldby** » Fri Jan 13, 2006 7:07 pm

R!tman wrote:Ok, maybe some programs run on Mac OS, but it is still proprietary software, not open source. Don't underestimate the ethical issue here, for some this is a bit point.

My point was really that if you aren't going to run OS X, why bother paying the extra for the premium Apple hardware?

R!tman wrote:All architectures that begin with "ppc" are some sort of powerpc architecture, and some of those are 64bit.

I know that. What I thought was that all of the recent PPC offerings from Apple used 64-bit PPC processors, and that OS X itself was 64 bit. Are you saying this is or isn't the case?

R!tman · Post by **R!tman** » Fri Jan 13, 2006 7:27 pm

Ian Goldby wrote:
R!tman wrote:All architectures that begin with "ppc" are some sort of powerpc architecture, and some of those are 64bit.
I know that. What I thought was that all of the recent PPC offerings from Apple used 64-bit PPC processors, and that OS X itself was 64 bit. Are you saying this is or isn't the case?

As Apple has the source code of Mac OS X they can simply compile it in 32bit or 64bit. just like we do with all packages. I for example use the same ebuild on my 32bit laptop and on my 64bit desktop. The only difference is that on the laptop I use a compiler which creates 32bit binaries and the one on the desktop creates 64 binaries, but the source code was the same for both.

chaotician · Post by **chaotician** » Fri Jan 13, 2006 7:43 pm

Ian Goldby wrote: My point was really that if you aren't going to run OS X, why bother paying the extra for the premium Apple hardware?

There are two answers here, and I dont think you'll like either one of them.

A. Because the asthetics of the MacBook Pro are jaw dropping.

and

B. Because I can.

I am a CIO for a pharma company where we posess a mix of computing environments. CRF's and DCF's are made using pagemaker and photoshop on macs in our layout department. My web servers are linux and we run Windows at all the desktops.

I would simply LOVE to have a single machine that would let me have all three OS's in one single, stunning little package. I know that a lot of it can be done with emulation et al. But I would much rather have the option on booting my machine to whatever I happen to need or want that day.

mpsii · Post by **mpsii** » Fri Jan 13, 2006 8:04 pm

R!tman wrote:As Apple has the source code of Mac OS X they can simply compile it in 32bit or 64bit. just like we do with all packages. I for example use the same ebuild on my 32bit laptop and on my 64bit desktop. The only difference is that on the laptop I use a compiler which creates 32bit binaries and the one on the desktop creates 64 binaries, but the source code was the same for both.

It is my understanding from various mac websites that OS X installs onto the Intel Macs in 32-bit compatibility mode. They are waiting until Q3 2006 for the 64-bit Intel Dual Core chips that will replace(?) the Yonahs.

Ian Goldby · Post by **Ian Goldby** » Fri Jan 13, 2006 9:00 pm

R!tman wrote:As Apple has the source code of Mac OS X they can simply compile it in 32bit or 64bit. just like we do with all packages. I for example use the same ebuild on my 32bit laptop and on my 64bit desktop. The only difference is that on the laptop I use a compiler which creates 32bit binaries and the one on the desktop creates 64 binaries, but the source code was the same for both.

I fear that we are still at cross-purposes. I'm a software developer myself, so I understand these things. What I really want to know is this: If I were to buy a PPC Mac from the Apple shop today (i.e. not one of the new Intel ones), would I be buying a 64-bit or a 32-bit system? My understanding is that it would be 64-bit, because I thought Apple had quietly made the transition to 64-bit a while back, but maybe I am wrong?

meyert · Post by **meyert** » Fri Jan 13, 2006 9:10 pm

1.) Some one should add the keyword x86 to elilo and efibootmgr. both compile cleanly from current portage version.
-> i think booting and partitoning should be fine. (i hope apple don't do microsoft stuff and alternate the standards a bit!)

2.) console support under efi. the problem
so we have no vesa modi and no good old int 0x10:
does the current radeon framebuffer driver work with the x1600 chip? does somebody known?
if not: we need a (the efi standard, as far as i understand, calls it: universal graphics adapter) UGA-driver, which is a replacement for VESA BIOS extention and the INT 0x10 BIOS interface.

3.) no X-server driver available:
as far as i saw no x11-driver for the x1600 is available under linux. so no X-server!
but this is hopefully going to change.

i really like the EFI firmware design, a clean startover.

meyert · Post by **meyert** » Fri Jan 13, 2006 9:22 pm

Hi.

ok booting is not THAT easy, a lot of things needs to be added to the main kernel tree. but a the good news a lot of work has already be done for IA64, so this may could be reused.

a good overview gives:
http://archive.linuxsymposium.org/ols20 ... LS2003.pdf

From the year 2003!
So maybe some guys have already patches in their home directories...

Post by **pjp** » Fri Jan 13, 2006 11:10 pm

chaotician wrote:There are two answers here, and I dont think you'll like either one of them.

Others would argue a third, which is quality not found in "cheaper" brands.

mpsii · Post by **mpsii** » Fri Jan 13, 2006 11:13 pm

Ian Goldby wrote:What I really want to know is this: If I were to buy a PPC Mac from the Apple shop today (i.e. not one of the new Intel ones), would I be buying a 64-bit or a 32-bit system? My understanding is that it would be 64-bit, because I thought Apple had quietly made the transition to 64-bit a while back, but maybe I am wrong?

All Apple G4 systems are 32-bit (ibook, powerbook, mini). All Apple G5 systems (iMac, PowerMac) are 64-bit with 32-bit compatibility (like what the Athlon64 or the newest Intel Extreme Editions are to the x86 crowd).

Ian Goldby · Post by **Ian Goldby** » Sat Jan 14, 2006 9:15 am

mpsii wrote:All Apple G4 systems are 32-bit (ibook, powerbook, mini). All Apple G5 systems (iMac, PowerMac) are 64-bit with 32-bit compatibility (like what the Athlon64 or the newest Intel Extreme Editions are to the x86 crowd).

Ah! That explains it nicely - exactly what I wanted to know. So the previous PowerBook was 32 bit and thus the MacBook is not a step backwards after all but not the step forwards to 64-bit that they would have been if Apple had been able to use the 64-bit G5.

I still wonder if it will be a relatively short time though before we see an upgrade of the MacBook to 64-bit...

(Interestingly then, the new Intel iMac is 32 bit where the previous G5 iMac was 64 bit).

Not that processor data and bus width is the most important thing when buying a new PC, but on the other hand, it is becoming increasingly common to see up to 4GB of RAM, which would have been completely unthinkable just a few years ago.

xavier10 · Post by **xavier10** » Sat Jan 14, 2006 12:15 pm

Ian Goldby wrote: Not that processor data and bus width is the most important thing when buying a new PC, but on the other hand, it is becoming increasingly common to see up to 4GB of RAM, which would have been completely unthinkable just a few years ago.

Yes, I did not think about this; it was too obvious that the new one would be 64 bits. But maybe it is due to they do not consider putting 4Gb in a macbook (or an imac) now.

Btw, I have a powerbook G4 (32 bits

) and use it as follows:
- OSX for photo processing (I am a fan of photography in my spare time): soft under OSX is better here.
- Linux Gentoo for work: I have a better understanding of what a linux does and it is of great help when I want to get things configured exactly as I want (from desktop to kernel options and security). It also looks much more convenient for programming and scientific computing. Last, but not least, I found Gentoo Linux faster than OSX for almost anything (and I do not mention the memory usage).

Now, why did I not get a PC ? As said above, the quality of the powerbook is just stunning compared to some PCs (execpt thinkpad, but this one turns out even more expensive). The only criticism was that it was a bit slower than a PC, but this point is being fixed in the macbook now.

mpsii · Post by **mpsii** » Sun Jan 15, 2006 3:20 am

The Macbook will go 64-bit as soon as Intel releases the 64-bit successor to Yonah sometime this fall.

e-ipi · Post by **e-ipi** » Sun Jan 15, 2006 5:59 am

Ian Goldby wrote:My point was really that if you aren't going to run OS X, why bother paying the extra for the premium Apple hardware?

There is a thread over at the ppc forum about this very issue. But, since we're here...

For one, I can imagine that some people start out thinking they'll use OS X and then find they don't like it for whatever reason. Also, some free software doesn't run that well on OS X or is a pain to compile. People may figure that in the long run, it's easier to just install linux. I had a problem with Emacs freezing in OS X -- it's since been solved -- but emacs is my #1, can't do without tool. That was enough for me to install linux on my Mac.

Finally, if you want a 12" laptop, the Apples are not a bad deal at all. I can't say I looked at them all, but I was rather unimpressed with the build and prices of other 12" laptops in the local market.

Macbook Pro

macbookpro

EFI only. These are the problems that could arise

Booting linux on an efi only system