Forums | MacLife

BTW as of 8:43 PST thier server must be overloaded with people wanting to see, so it make take a time to load or may not load at all.

I dunno about Windows config, but does the OS support monitors with higher screen size like Cinema Display 23?


Any mention of OS X speed on Intel anyone?

bastards didn't let us know about performance....I guess this makes Scott picture a fake

NAG wrote:

I think the Windows monitor problem would probably have more to do with the apparently obscure video card they are are using than anything else.

Running Windows; Mac OS X on other PCs

Along with running Mac OS X, Windows XP installs without hitch on the Intel-based Mac, just as it would on any other PC, and booted without issue when installed on an NTFS-formatted partition. The only misbehavior sources encountered involved the video card. Initially, Windows refused to budge from an 800x600 setting on a 23-inch Cinema Display. Some prodding managed to get the screen to 1600x1200, but sources were unable to get Windows to take advantage of the entire screen.

Apple alluded to developers at its recent Worldwide Developer Conference that Windows should be able to run on Apple's Intel Macs.

As for installing Mac OS X on non-Apple hardware, attempts to boot from the included Mac OS X for Intel disc resulted in an error message on both a Dell and off-brand PC. The message states that the hardware configuration is not supported by Darwin x86.

Sources have indicated that Apple will employ an EDID chip on the motherboard of Intel-based Macs that Mac OS X will look for and must handshake with first in order to boot. Such an approach, similar to hardware dongles, could theoretically be defeated, although it's unknown what level of sophistication Apple will employ.

Also uncertain is whether the Intel-based development kits seeded to developers already feature the EDID chip or whether the installation disc contains a less sophisticated installation check that simply seeks out one particular hardware configuration--the one given to developers--and will not install on other configurations.

Not might fault they are getting pounded and the page doesn't come up.

It seems like they had to for the developer machines because they didn't want more people in on the switch than they needed, so they used intel graphics. If apple is using nvidia and ati cards now, why wouldn't they keep doing so?

sosumi wrote:

Kurto2021 wrote:

bastards didn't let us know about performance....I guess this makes Scott picture a fake

Scott's not a liar.  Most likely he just happened to have a system that met the requirements for Darwin x86.

That would be a Mactel system.

Ceemkm wrote:

here's one of the pics running XP http://img18.echo.cx/img18/7217/36xr.jpg
Here's one of the inside http://img281.echo.cx/img281/1017/11iy1.th.jpg]
Graphics card http://img172.echo.cx/img172/6346/26ww.th.jpg]
From Think secret

Please do not post very wide images especially if you link them from someone elses server. -Sci

if you wanna post links, do it right.
http://img281.echo.cx/img281/1017/11iy1.jpg
http://img172.echo.cx/img172/6346/26ww.jpg

I can't wait til Scott drops by and explains the whole thing

user wrote:

sosumi wrote:

Kurto2021 wrote:

bastards didn't let us know about performance....I guess this makes Scott picture a fake

Scott's not a liar.  Most likely he just happened to have a system that met the requirements for Darwin x86.

That would be a Mactel system.

Says who?  There is a version of Darwin out there that runs on X86-based computers.

greggv8 wrote:

Only TWO PCI slots?!?!?

Must...pound...sense...into...Steve...Jobs'...brain...

Apple just keeps pulling this same crap over and over and over again. Release a new generation with new CPUs and slash back the expansion capabilities. :where's the really PO'ed smiley:

This is only a machine for developers. We have no idea if the new machines will be any way like this at all. PPC equivalent mactels probably aren't coming untill '07 anyways