Cheetah 3d Serial Macbook
• • • Apple's Intel transition was the process of changing the (CPU) of from processors to processors. The transition became public knowledge at the 2005 (WWDC), when CEO made the announcement that the company would make a transition from the use of PowerPC supplied by (formerly ) and in its Macintosh computers, to processors designed and manufactured by Intel, a chief supplier for most of Apple's competitors. The transition marked the Macintosh platform's second migration to a new CPU architecture. The first was the switch from the (used since the original ) to the architecture. Apple is the only personal computer company to have successfully completed such a transition – competitors and never regained their market positions after their switch from to 68k in the mid-1980s and stopped manufacturing computers in the early 1990s, around the time Apple was switching to PowerPC. Apple's initial press release indicated the transition would begin by June 2006, and finish by the end of 2007, but it actually proceeded much more quickly.
Aug 16, 2015. Cheetah3D is a lean, fast, and elegant 3D modeling, rendering, and animation package with an easy learning curve. It was written from ground up in Cocoa and.
The first generation Intel-based Macintoshes were released in January 2006 with, and Steve Jobs announced the last models to switch in August 2006, with the available immediately and with the Intel available by October 2006. The Xserve servers were available in December 2006. Apple released 'Snow Leopard' on August 28, 2009 as Intel-only, removing support for the PowerPC architecture. It is also the last Mac OS X version that support PowerPC based applications.
• • • • June 6, 2005: Apple announces its plans to switch to Intel processors at the and released a Developer Transition System, a PC running an Intel build of Mac OS X 10.4.1 with a [ ] in a modified case, to all Select and Premier members of the Apple Developer Connection at a price of $999. • January 10, 2006: Jobs announces the first two computers in this series, the 15' and line, both using an chip and offers to trade in the Developer Transition Kits for iMacs. • February 28, 2006: Jobs announces that the now also comes with an chip, in either the Solo or Duo varieties. • April 5, 2006: Apple announced the release of, which allowed users of Intel-based Macs to run (and later versions of Boot Camp allow later versions of Windows). • April 24, 2006: Apple announces the 17' MacBook Pro, replacing the 17'. • April 27, 2006: Intel announces that processors with the would be released months sooner than previously thought.
• May 16, 2006: Apple announces the 13', replacing both the line and the 12' PowerBook. • June 26, 2006: Intel announces the server/workstation CPU. • July 5, 2006: Apple announces a special educational configuration of the, replacing the old. • August 7, 2006: 'Transition Complete' - Apple announces the Intel-based and, replacing the and Xserve G5, at the; both use the Xeon 5100 series (') processors. [ ] • October 26, 2007: Apple ships 'Leopard', the final release with PowerPC support. Macs using a processor cannot boot this operating system, as only and processors with a minimum 867 MHz clock speed are supported.
• August 28, 2009: Apple ships Mac OS X 10.6 'Snow Leopard' exclusively for Intel Macs. PowerPC Macs cannot boot this OS. This is also the final release with Rosetta, allowing PowerPC software to run on an Intel Mac.
• March 1, 2011: The beta version of the then-upcoming drops 'Rosetta' and will not be able to run PowerPC based software. • July 20, 2011: The release of Mac OS X 10.7 Lion formally ends Apple's support of PowerPC-based software. • August 7, 2011: PowerPC hardware reaches 'vintage' status having been discontinued five years earlier, ending most of Apple's service and parts support for PowerPC hardware. • June 11, 2012: Apple releases iTunes 10.6.3, their last application with support for PowerPC processors. • August 7, 2013: PowerPC hardware reaches 'obsolete' status having been discontinued seven years prior, ending all of Apple's service and parts support for PowerPC hardware. Product renaming [ ] The names of some of Apple's desktop and laptop product lines changed between the PowerPC version and the corresponding Intel version.
Most notably, the word 'Power' was dropped from all product lines. During the Keynote address at Macworld in 2006, where the first Intel-based Macs, the iMac and MacBook Pro, were announced, Steve Jobs remarked that the new naming schemes for their products reflected their desire to have 'Mac' in the name of all of their computers, and because they were 'done with power.'
This was in reference to the fact that the previous PowerPC G5 processors were not energy efficient, and therefore used far too much power to be used in any portable Macs. PowerPC Intel Precedents [ ] The first known attempt to move to Intel platforms was the from spring 1992 to 1993, a joint effort with to port Mac OS to run on ordinary 486 PCs. It was based on Novell's next in-development version of DR DOS with its pre-emptive multitasker, which provided a hybrid 32-bit/16-bit core system similar in architecture to Windows 3.1 in 386 Enhanced Mode, but without a GUI. The ported System 7.1 ran on top of this environment. While the project was successful with running pre-beta versions it was stopped in 1993 after management and strategy changes. The core system (but without the Star Trek-specific components) was later released as part of Novell DOS 7. The Macintosh line underwent a similar transition between 1994 and about 1996, when Apple from Motorola's series of chips to /Motorola processors, developed jointly by Motorola, Apple, and IBM.
This took several years, during which Apple produced versions of the that could run on either platform, introduced fairly low-level emulation of the 68k architecture by the PowerPC models, and encouraged third-party developers to release that could run natively on either architecture. Apple later transitioned the Macintosh from the earlier to. This transition also took a number of years, and was facilitated by the inclusion of, an environment in which an instance of could be run, permitting the execution of programs that had not been ported to Mac OS X, as well as the introduction of for Mac OS 9 and Mac OS X, allowing programs to run natively on either system.
Jobs revealed at the 2005 WWDC, that every version of Mac OS X had been secretly developed and compiled for Intel processors (as well as PowerPC) as they were developed; the of its predecessor had been maintained. It is not publicly known whether Apple maintains current builds for any other architectures although the related runs on the 's. Steve Jobs talks about the transition to Intel Steve Jobs stated that Apple's primary motivation for the transition was their disappointment with the progress of IBM's development of PowerPC technology, and their greater faith in Intel to meet Apple's needs. In particular, he cited the performance per projections in the provided by Intel. This is an especially important consideration in laptop design, which affects the hours of use per battery charge.
In June 2003, Jobs had introduced Macs based on the processor and promised that within a year, the of the part would be up to 3. Two years later, 3 GHz G5s were still not available, and rumors continued that IBM's low yields on the -derived chip were to blame. Further, the heat produced by the chip proved an obstacle to deploying it in a computer, which had become the fastest growing segment of the industry. Some observers were surprised that Apple had not made a deal with, which had in recent years become a strong competitor to Intel. AMD had recently released its competitive 64-bit platform, and by moving straight to Apple would have had one less architecture transition.
Analysts have speculated that AMD's lack of low-power designs at the time were behind the decision to go with Intel. However, in 2011, Apple investigated using AMD’s low power for the, but eventually opted for Intel due to AMD's potential inability to supply enough Llano processors to meet demand. Benefits [ ]. This section does not any.
Unsourced material may be challenged and. (August 2010) () Advocates of the transition pointed out the potential for the new Intel Mac systems to run four classes of software at native speeds: Mac OS X binaries, / applications, applications, and /x86 applications. Originally, software such as or was required to run x86 software on the Macintosh.
Such software could now enjoy much more success with near-native performance through, such as is currently being done by and. For those customers wishing to achieve a more conventional environment, a solution is possible on an x86 Apple device using software (which includes Windows drivers for Mac hardware). Some third-party partitioning options can even provide triple, or even quadruple boot. Although most games depend on the use of not available on Mac OS X (on either processor type), it should be easier to port OS-independent code, such as, now that developers no longer have to resolve, and other dependency issues associated with moving from x86 to PowerPC.
Drawbacks [ ]. This section needs additional citations for.
Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (October 2015) () The announcement of Apple's intention to switch to Intel-based Macs caused concern because, the PowerPC dynamic translator, when first announced, emulated a at only 60-80% of a similarly powered CPU's clock speed. Apart from this,, the virtualization for Mac OS X, was not ported to the x86 architecture, leaving the new Intel-powered Macs incompatible with original Mac OS applications without a proper third-party PowerPC emulator.
The performance of Intel's was a concern, along with the x86 architecture itself, and whether it would affect system performance and application quality. Other problems include and reduced floating point performance in real world applications relative to equivalent or contemporary PowerPC processors. It was also feared that it may be possible for Windows and Windows applications to run natively on Mac hardware, possibly killing off Mac OS X and/or applications developed for it.
There was concern that the early announcement of the change would cause an, and there was the possibility that Intel could force Apple to use the branding. In addition, Apple had nurtured a feeling of animosity toward Intel among its loyal base. It would take time and money to convince Apple's most loyal customers that Intel was acceptable.
There were also fears that Intel, which took part in the development and implementation of the, would force Apple to drop all development and support of its serial bus on all Intel Macs. This did not occur, as FireWire ports continued to be included on all Macs, except certain notebook configurations beginning with the in 2008, until being replaced by the faster port. Many of these fears were put to rest at Macworld 2006 with the arrival of the first Intel-based Macs. Was improved to offer much faster speeds than originally demonstrated (though benchmarks suggest that PowerPC code still does not perform as well under emulation on a Core Duo iMac as it does on a G5 iMac ). Intel's Core Duo CPUs perform nearly as well as the most powerful towers, and outperformed the G5 chip in the 2005 model of iMac on both integer and floating point tests. [ ] Applications native to both PPC and Intel-based Macs such as Safari web browser were found to perform better on the Intel-based Mac than on the PPC-based Mac. However, applications will not run directly on Intel Macs.
Pre-Mac OS X applications can only be run on Intel Macs by using such as,, and, though the lack of stability of these emulators severely limits their functionality. Fears of an were dismissed after sales of Macs for the Christmas 2005 quarter saw an increase over the previous Christmas. Unlike Windows-based PC counterparts 'Intel Inside' stickers have never been included on any Apple product. Hardware-oriented [ ] There were questions over the extent to which Apple would retain control over the non-processor components of the system design. Apple is traditionally a systems builder, and some feared that Apple's philosophy may be affected if the company switched to commodity parts. Others noted that Apple has slowly been switching to standard parts since the introduction of the Power Mac in 1995, and said that using a non-Apple chipset in itself would not harm the Mac's image. Intel Macs employ a different Intel technology for,, not the Apple had been using.
EFI removes the traditional PC reliance on the while providing more functionality. The use of the x86 architecture allows Windows to run natively on Apple hardware, and opens the possibility of using the to run Windows executables directly.
Some [ ] fear that the change will make Mac OS X a less valuable target for software developers, since users can use a setup or a Wine variant (such as or ) to run Windows apps instead. Others say that it could be a boon to, since they would not have to leave their Windows applications behind while trying out Mac OS X. The idea of being available on regular PCs has also been discussed, but Apple has said that they will not allow regular PCs to run Mac OS X. The Project, however, is able to install Mac OS X on non-Apple PCs.
It was previously thought that since Windows XP is incompatible with the, it would not be run on Intel-based Macs. Prior to the Boot Camp announcement, a prize contest resulted in a working solution for dual-booting Windows XP and Mac OS X on an Intel Mac. Microsoft has announced that will not be EFI-compatible on 32-bit platforms, but the later versions of Boot Camp allow Vista to be installed on any Intel Mac. Intel was seen among the Mac community as a purveyor of hot-running chips (especially the ). Apple themselves mocked the Pentium range in their 'Toasted ' advertisements of the late 1990s.
However, the chips, which were designed for laptop use, run much cooler than the Pentium 4. Apple claimed the then-new Intel Core chips, which are based on the Pentium M microarchitecture, would have dramatically better performance per watt than the PowerPC G4 and G5. Finally, the relative quality of the x86 architecture has been discussed. Critics of the switch say that x86 was a poor choice because of its lack of compared to the PowerPC, and the lack of (also known as ). Proponents have responded by saying that the x86 architecture has evolved greatly since the original 8086 was introduced, and that CPUs in general have combined and philosophies in their internal designs for some time, making the distinction obsolete. They also point out that improved could equal, and that most programmers rarely deal with x86's peculiarities because the does the work.
The PowerPC G5 was a 64-bit design, although very few applications made use of the increased address space. In contrast the original Core Solo and Core Duo chips were. On August 7, 2006, Apple released the and Intel-based, introducing Intel 64 (Intel's implementation of ) architecture into the lineup through the use of the processor. As of August 7, 2007, all other computers in Apple's product line have been updated with the 64-bit Core 2 Duo.
While the current benchmarks comparing Core Duo to Core 2 Duo processors show very little difference when running in 32 bit, the 64 bit edge has become more of an issue with the release of (Snow Leopard), and now users can dual boot Windows 7 in full 64-bit mode. Existing PowerPC applications [ ] Java applications (that do not rely on ), some, and that execute inside an all work immediately on both processors and are immune to changes. Mac OS X applications that cannot be migrated run inside a PowerPC on Intel called '.' Rosetta was originally limited to a instruction set, but currently supports and the instruction set, leaving only the additions unsupported. Rosetta is an instruction translator comparable to the 68k emulator that allows PowerPC Macintoshes to run pre-PowerPC code, rather than a virtual system like; it does not require a second operating system to be loaded as a subsystem before the application can work. AltiVec itself has been encapsulated since by a vectorization library; this library uses AltiVec on the PowerPC and (or equivalent regular instructions) on x86. A new version of was released that supported the generation of for Intel and PowerPC, the new system's equivalent of the earlier 68k-PowerPC.
Applications can be ported simply by recompiling them and checking for endianness problems. Applications required some additional tuning, but not of the complexity of the transition from Mac OS 9. Applications written using suite had to be modified; those that use required further code changes, described by Apple and Metrowerks. Is not supported on the x86 architecture. This means that pre-Mac OS X software does not run on Mac OS X out of the box, to which some users running older applications (such as 4 and 5) objected.
[ ] However, third-party emulators, such as,, and, have been ported to Intel-based Macs, allowing some pre-Mac OS X software to run. See also [ ] • • References [ ].
I currently own a Mac mini (2.53 GHz core 2 duo, with 4 GB ram, NVidia's 9400M GPU, 340 GB HD at 5400 RPM), and I'm extremely tempted by the new 13' MacBook Air (2.13 GHz, 4 GB ram, NVidia's 320M GPU, 256 GB flash storage). How do you think the MBA should perform, compared to the mini? I'm using the computers to do various type of works: from basic 3D creations (using Cheetah3D), to space exploration using Celestia, maths calculations ( Mathematica or Maple), PDF creation, video watching and music listening while working on other stuff, email and internet navigation, etc.
I'm also playing some old games ( Quake1 and Quake3, and a few new arcade style games.). Originally Posted by Kali I currently own a Mac mini (2.53 GHz core 2 duo, with 4 GB ram, NVidia's 9400M GPU, 340 GB HD at 5400 RPM), and I'm extremely tempted by the new 13' MacBook Air (2.13 GHz, 4 GB ram, NVidia's 320M GPU, 256 GB flash storage). How do you think the MBA should perform, compared to the mini? I'm using the computers to do various type of works: from basic 3D creations (using Cheetah3D), to space exploration using Celestia, maths calculations ( Mathematica or Maple), PDF creation, video watching and music listening while working on other stuff, email and internet navigation, etc. I'm also playing some old games ( Quake1 and Quake3, and a few new arcade style games.) For rendering, you will probably get a performance hit of about 15% but that will translate to something you won't notice e.g 20 minute render vs 23 minute render and the SSD will make some things much faster which will negate some of that.
When the drive has to access a texture map, that will go much more quickly. A benchmark here: shows sequential read at 166MB/s and sequential write at 150MB/s, which will be around 3-5x faster than the 5400 rpm drive in the Mini. The GPU performance is double the 9400M so hardware-accelerated rendering benefits enormously (48SPs vs 16): If you ever need to do seriously long renders, you'd be best investing in a cheap headless PC tower and just send renders off to it overnight. Pmp Fastrack V8 License Serial Number here. Long term renders on the Macbook Air might make the CPU ramp down in speed to keep cool. Cork Report 1982 Pdf Reader. Previous incarnations have done that so short benchmarks seem fast but prolonged renders would go slower.
Like I say though, I don't think you'd notice a performance hit coming from a Mac Mini. It will actually seem much snappier. Originally Posted by Kali Well, that iMac maybe much more powerfull (more bang for the bucks), but it isn't a portable computer, which is what I need. EDIT: I forgot to say that I'll use a lot the portable in a classroom to do physics demonstrations and presentations. I need it to be small, fast at startup, fast at launching apps, fast at calculations and textures loading, and efficient/reliable in any classroom comp operation.
It sounds like you REALLY ought to be getting (at least considering) the 15' MacBookPro. For the same price, you get a bigger screen, a MUCH faster (i5) CPU, and a much better GPU. It's not quite as small, but it is SO much more powerful for the same $$. Originally Posted by KingOfSomewhereHot It sounds like you REALLY ought to be getting (at least considering) the 15' MacBookPro. For the same price, you get a bigger screen, a MUCH faster (i5) CPU, and a much better GPU. It's not quite as small, but it is SO much more powerful for the same $$.
Don't forget that the new 13' MBA has the same screen 'size' as a 15' (higher resolution, for the same price). Also the MBA (for the same price) has a much faster storage (SSD) than the MBP's HD (5200 RPM). And apparently, the 330M isn't much faster than the 320M GPU, and Intel's GPU sucks. Also, I don't want the optical drive on the MBP.
Why should I pay for that useless drive? Screen size does not equal screen resolution. But whatever. If you'll be doing much 3D rendering, you'll see a HUGE performance advantage with the i5 CPU. The 330M may not be MUCH better than a 320M, but if you're playing quake and it's the difference between 20 fps and 30 fps, then it's very noticeable. A smaller overall size and light weight could easily outweigh the performance advantages for you. I mentioned the MBP based SOLELY on performance (but still portable).
The new Air is, without a doubt, the nicest netbook available today! Originally Posted by Kali For Quake3, that's really NOT a problem, since I can already play it perfectly on the mini (9600M), with 90 FPS and all rendering options set to best. So with the 320M (which is supposed to be about twice the performances of the 9600M), I should be in heaven! The 320M is slightly slower than the 9600M but you'll still get about 80FPS or so. It sounds like you've decided you'd prefer the MBA already. The i5 in the MBP is certainly 85% faster but if it's something you will carry about a lot, the MBA weighing half will be a huge bonus. People often think of computer purchases as though you have to make the right decision the first time and if you make a mistake you're screwed.
If you have it for 2 months and find it's too slow, you will get about 80% of the value on eBay so you can buy another machine. I think in either 2011 or 2012, the Macbook, MBP and MBA line will converge into the MBA style. They have 256GB on-board space this year and will get 512GB next year for the same price. That's enough that they can discontinue hard drives in the entire laptop lineup in 2011 although cost compromises may have to be made elsewhere: 13' MBA: 1.86GHz Intel Core 2 Duo 4GB 1066MHz DDR3 SDRAM 128GB Flash Storage £1179 13' MBP: 2.4GHz Intel Core 2 Duo 4GB 1066MHz DDR3 SDRAM - 2x2GB 250GB Serial ATA Drive @ 5400 rpm £999 Next year, they can put in 256GB for the same price in the MBA. Of course the Macbook and Macbook Pro would use the standard CPU/GPU chips. I wonder what happened to the MB and MBP this year - the MB has been updated every year for the past 7 years in either October or November and the MBP is often updated round the same time.
If they pulled out a design change to be similar to the MBA without an optical sometime in November that would be nice. They could of course fit low capacity SSD chips as the boot drive with HDD bays and keep a more squared off design. But by dropping the optical, they get more room for adjusting the internals. Dropping ethernet and FW800 would allow them to make a square design the same as the thickest point of the MBA.
They'd just need to adopt USB 3 and provide a solution to capture footage from tape camcorders via an adaptor. Sandy Bridge + NVidia IGP: That means 2.5GHz Core i5 on the low end. EDIT: I forgot to say that I'll use a lot the portable in a classroom to do physics demonstrations and presentations. The SSD should have a big impact on this.
My suggestion would be to go to an Apple store and try out a machine. Or ask yourself how often does your presentations get involved in heavy usage of the CPU (probably seldom). Another option is to skip the laptop and get a new Mini and put a SSD into it. A micro keyboard and a Mini in a backpack would be very handy. I'm assuming here a projection video system in the lecture hall. I need it to be small, fast at startup, fast at launching apps, fast at calculations and textures loading, and efficient/reliable in any classroom comp operation. At this point you have to think about a device that has an SSD to get 'fast'.
However the AIR has other issues such as connecting to the projection system in the lecture hall. Plus the AIR simply isn't fast CPU wise. However i'm not convinced that CPU speed is really significant for what you describe. The question is does your Mini currently become CPU bound doing what you want to do in the lecture hall? In the end I have to agree with the many others here the MBP might be a better option if and only if you can prove to yourself that you need a faster CPU than what ships in the AIR. Both the latest 13' & 15' MBPs are pretty impressive in their own ways.
Each can be easily upgraded to an SSD and the 15' can be had with a much better processor.