PDA

View Full Version : Apple On Track to Ship Intel Macs by June 2006


MacRumors
Sep 20, 2005, 05:05 AM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

At Apple Expo in Paris, Steve Jobs reaffirmed that Apple would be ready to ship Intel-based Macs by June of 2006.

"We are on track to do that," Jobs told a news conference in Paris, referring to the plan the company announced in June this year.

Apple first announced their plan to move to Intel-based processors in June 2005 (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2005/06/20050606143135.shtml). At that time, Jobs stated that the transition would take place in less than two years and be complete by the end of 2007. The first Intel Macs were expected to arrive by June of 2006.

Based on Jobs' comments today, this targeted timeframe remains true.

JRM PowerPod
Sep 20, 2005, 05:06 AM
I don't care........I want my PPC Dual core G5......Steve....now

groovebuster
Sep 20, 2005, 05:06 AM
No new Macs so far in Paris...

Bummer!

groovebuster

dornball
Sep 20, 2005, 05:07 AM
i guess this means no PB's at MacWorld SF?

Mac_Freak
Sep 20, 2005, 05:07 AM
and...and...and...and, is that it, oh man. I am going back to bed.

mddharma
Sep 20, 2005, 05:10 AM
No more announcements? WTF!!! :mad: :mad:

gammamonk
Sep 20, 2005, 05:10 AM
I feel sorry for everyone who wait up until 5am for this, but I'm happy to hear the intel transition is on schedule. I think the intel mini will be the perfect machine for 20's guys like me, who love apple, but are dying to play Death Rally, etc. Load up XP? Nah man, I'm loading up Win98se.

lopresmb
Sep 20, 2005, 05:11 AM
any idea what was behind the "mythical" black tarp???

MattG
Sep 20, 2005, 05:14 AM
Wow bad assed...that's not very far off, guys. 2006 should be a pretty exciting year.

iGary
Sep 20, 2005, 05:17 AM
*curls back under covers, pissed off*

rdowns
Sep 20, 2005, 05:19 AM
*curls back under covers, pissed off*

Did you throw up in your mouth?

oskar
Sep 20, 2005, 05:20 AM
So where are the PowerBooks? Where are the PowerMacs? No updates? :mad:

rdowns
Sep 20, 2005, 05:22 AM
Check out the market share numbers.

PARIS, Sept 20 (Reuters) - Apple Computer Inc. Chief Executive Steve Jobs said on Tuesday that the company was on track to ship Intel-based computers as targetted by June 2006.

"We are on track to do that," Jobs told a news conference in Paris, referring to the plan announced in June this year.

He said Apple has a 4.5 percent share of the personal computer market in the United States and a 3 percent share globally.

Hattig
Sep 20, 2005, 05:23 AM
Hopefully this will beat some sense into the "Intel Macs in January" people.

But what was under the black cover? Or is it still there, waiting for people in America to wake up and crawl groggily to their computers (apart from the people who stayed up until 5am hoping for a release)?

Dagless
Sep 20, 2005, 05:24 AM
i like that. hopefully should get my 12" or 15" intel PowerBook for my 3rd year in university :) even better if its Rev B

mad jew
Sep 20, 2005, 05:28 AM
The original Intel iBook is mine. I've been thinking of getting a current one to replace my 800MHz G4 machine, but I can wait until late 2006. I'm guessing that if the minis are the first to go, the iBooks won't be far behind. :)

oskar
Sep 20, 2005, 05:31 AM
Hopefully this will beat some sense into the "Intel Macs in January" people.

But what was under the black cover? Or is it still there, waiting for people in America to wake up and crawl groggily to their computers (apart from the people who stayed up until 5am hoping for a release)?

That's what I'm waiting to hear. Who cares if it isn't anything new anymore, but what was behind the black cloth?

Hattig
Sep 20, 2005, 05:34 AM
That's what I'm waiting to hear. Who cares if it isn't anything new anymore, but what was behind the black cloth?

Anti-RIAA ninjas?

MrSugar
Sep 20, 2005, 05:58 AM
This is great news for the future, but what about today? I was really hoping to see some new computer stuff.

Maybe it won't be out for a few weeks.

CmdrLaForge
Sep 20, 2005, 06:03 AM
Hi guys

And thats what he always said ! I never believed anybody saying that it would arrive in January! For a simple reason: he told the developers to get their software shippable by June 06. I mean if they intended to ship earlier then it would be necessary to tell the developers! Because you need the software to ship a computer system - right?

What about those black covers? Are they gone by now or still there?

New products could still come later today at 3 pm (european time - 9 am SF) like always.

Cheers
LaForge

MacsRgr8
Sep 20, 2005, 06:14 AM
"We're on schedule..."

Heard that one before.

So, that's it. The MWParis announcement was this. This was behind the black curtains :confused: :(

Chundles
Sep 20, 2005, 06:29 AM
Hi guys

And thats what he always said ! I never believed anybody saying that it would arrive in January! For a simple reason: he told the developers to get their software shippable by June 06. I mean if they intended to ship earlier then it would be necessary to tell the developers! Because you need the software to ship a computer system - right?

What about those black covers? Are they gone by now or still there?

New products could still come later today at 3 pm (european time - 9 am SF) like always.

Cheers
LaForge

Um, 3pm Europe time is 6am Cupertino time not 9am. Yes, it is 9am east coast time but Apple releases are on a west coast time frame. That makes it 6pm Europe time which I think is a bit late.

hyperpasta
Sep 20, 2005, 06:35 AM
The .Mac update was behind the black cloth. Yes, I was expecting more too, but I think a delay on some products (coughMPcough) made the keynote too empty and be canceled. Then a special event was set up to unveil all products that WERE ready (iPod nano, iTunes 5).

Arnaud
Sep 20, 2005, 06:37 AM
"We're on schedule..."

Heard that one before.

So, that's it. The MWParis announcement was this. This was behind the black curtains :confused: :(

Or... Maybe the black curtain IS the new Apple product ? :eek:

Seriously:
- they were selling computers since the beginning of the eighties;
- they tried to launch PDA's (read: Newton) - marketing fiasco - ;
- later released this little gizmo (the iPod) and its variations, and now the iPod is a major item in the sales;
- they're trying their teeth on the phone market;
- maybe they plan to do the same with... curtains ?

Paris is an ideal launching place (what with fashion etc).

Now... Apple iCurtains, what could they be... Embroidered with silver Apple logos ? Pluggable on iTunes ? Wifi ? :p

Next steps: Apple iShoes, Apple iHamburgers (aka Appleburgers), Apple iCars...

lexfuzo
Sep 20, 2005, 06:38 AM
The .Mac update was behind the black cloth.
How do you know?

EGT
Sep 20, 2005, 06:39 AM
*curls back under covers, pissed off*

Hahaha! :p You're really not taking any of this Intel transition well, are you?

Maybe it's just Steve's idea of a big prank....

"Only joking, Here's the G5 Powerbook!"

iGary
Sep 20, 2005, 06:39 AM
Did you throw up in your mouth?

Just a little bitô. :D

jeriqo
Sep 20, 2005, 06:42 AM
The .Mac update was behind the black cloth. Yes, I was expecting more too, but I think a delay on some products (coughMPcough) made the keynote too empty and be canceled. Then a special event was set up to unveil all products that WERE ready (iPod nano, iTunes 5).

Are you sure the black cloth was removed ?

iGary
Sep 20, 2005, 06:43 AM
This is almost as bad as WWDC - NO PRODUCTS!

Steve talks for an hour and splits. WTF?

DakotaGuy
Sep 20, 2005, 06:45 AM
I could have told everyone not to wait up. Apple's investment in PowerPC is over. I would not expect anything exciting except a small speed bump or feature improvement until the Mactels are ready. All hardware engineering has switched to Intel by this point. Corporations have to decide where they are going to invest their resources. At this point putting any money into a "dead horse" is just not worth it. The people that need a computer because their old one breaks or cannot run what they need to will buy one. Everyone else that has purchased in the last couple of years or so will wait for the Mactels anyhow.

hyperpasta
Sep 20, 2005, 06:48 AM
Are you sure the black cloth was removed ?

Nope. But the Expo aready started so it makes sense. ATTENTION PEOPLE: APPLE SILENTLY INTRODUCED THE NEW .MAC! So there, one small new product. MP PowerMacs are 100% positively coming before Christmas (look at ship times). Powerbooks might go high-res, too.

MacsRgr8
Sep 20, 2005, 06:48 AM
Well... if this is it, then you know now why the Keynote was cancelled.

What would have happened if Steve did a Keynote, and the only thing he could mention was:
- .Mac updated (Yah!)
- On schedule for iGary's favorite CPU :D

lexfuzo
Sep 20, 2005, 06:53 AM
I could have told everyone not to wait up. Apple's investment in PowerPC is over. I would not expect anything exciting except a small speed bump or feature improvement until the Mactels are ready. All hardware engineering has switched to Intel by this point. Corporations have to decide where they are going to invest their resources. At this point putting any money into a "dead horse" is just not worth it. The people that need a computer because their old one breaks or cannot run what they need to will buy one. Everyone else that has purchased in the last couple of years or so will wait for the Mactels anyhow.

You're right, but there could be better screens, better graphics (the one with h.264 decoding would be nice), or just price cuts. I prefer any of these over .mac being upgraded to the size of an iPod shuffle.

Stella
Sep 20, 2005, 07:12 AM
I'm wondering why people constantly say PBs won't be upgraded to Intel first, but later - when the PB are in most need of a decent processor...


I'm thinking the software - By June there should be more Pro software available, plus you get to run using that emulator ( the name escapes me ) until such software is ready.

hob
Sep 20, 2005, 07:16 AM
You don't wanna burn in hell...

You gotta love that mans flair for the over dramatic!!

jdechko
Sep 20, 2005, 07:32 AM
You gotta love that mans flair for the over dramatic!!

Agreed. I found this comment amusing. Oh well. I was up at 5 am anyway to get to work, so its not a big loss for me. But anything could happen. As has been suggested, its only 5:30am over on the West Coast.

NeXTLoop
Sep 20, 2005, 07:33 AM
Because Apple specifically said it would be the consumer line that gets upgraded first. Probably allow the "consumers" to test the products before unleasing them on the "pros." :D


I'm wondering why people constantly say PBs won't be upgraded to Intel first, but later - when the PB are in most need of a decent processor...

iGary
Sep 20, 2005, 07:35 AM
You gotta love that mans flair for the over dramatic!!

He's back on this kharma gig again...kind of odd, actually.

MacsRgr8
Sep 20, 2005, 07:44 AM
Because Apple specifically said it would be the consumer line that gets upgraded first. Probably allow the "consumers" to test the products before unleasing them on the "pros." :D

And that's because the Pro-software might not be ready yet....

Abstract
Sep 20, 2005, 07:50 AM
Why is everyone so disappointed?

Nothing was under that black cover, and nothing is what we got. ;)

And yes, there will be small updates coming for the PB and PowerMacs, but maybe later today or a bit later. What else can they use to draw attention away from the nothingness people have witnessed in Paris so far?

CmdrLaForge
Sep 20, 2005, 08:16 AM
Hi guys,

here are some pictures of the expo:
http://www.macnews.de/gallery/thumbnails.php?album=32&page=1

Cheers
LaForge

iGary
Sep 20, 2005, 08:20 AM
http://www.macnews.de/gallery/albums/apple_expo_05/PICT0019.jpg

"You don't want to rot in hell, do you?"

My man. :cool:

Stella
Sep 20, 2005, 08:24 AM
Because Apple specifically said it would be the consumer line that gets upgraded first. Probably allow the "consumers" to test the products before unleasing them on the "pros." :D

Thanks.

I thought people were just pulling these conclusions out from their arses or something... :D

cc bcc
Sep 20, 2005, 08:29 AM
Because Apple specifically said it would be the consumer line that gets upgraded first. Probably allow the "consumers" to test the products before unleasing them on the "pros." :D

Where did Apple specifically say that? It's plausible, but I haven't seen any proof of this, people just repeat after each other.

GeoffRuth
Sep 20, 2005, 08:33 AM
Or... Maybe the black curtain IS the new Apple product ? :eek:

- maybe they plan to do the same with... curtains ?

Paris is an ideal launching place (what with fashion etc).

Apparently, they've already broken into the sock merchandising field.

Arnaud
Sep 20, 2005, 08:42 AM
Apparently, they've already broken into the sock merchandising field.

Oh yeah, I forgot that one... (The iSock?).
Hmm, maybe the iShoe is closer than I thought too...
(Batteries in the heels, FW as shoelaces, etc etc...) :cool:

Eluon
Sep 20, 2005, 09:02 AM
I am very dissappointed. I wish they would have actually updated something besides .Mac. Most Mac users don't even use it because it costs. I dunno, I just think it is stupid to spend all that money on an expo just to tell people what you could have done through mass media.

maya
Sep 20, 2005, 09:09 AM
I am very dissappointed. I wish they would have actually updated something besides .Mac. Most Mac users don't even use it because it costs. I dunno, I just think it is stupid to spend all that money on an expo just to tell people what you could have done through mass media.


The presence and reassurance in that Europe market is what this EXPO was held for. :)

.Mac might seem like a minor update, and many will agree since its only software based and not hardware based. And the last time anyone checked Apple Computers is a hardware company then software. So we feel "ripped off" to say the least at this announcement.

I do understand Apples position on this foray as people are waiting for Intel Macs and they claimed that they have many "exciting products" for 2005, as mentioned in Steve's Keynote @ WWDC 2005.

Steamboatwillie
Sep 20, 2005, 09:10 AM
The .Mac update was behind the black cloth. Yes, I was expecting more too, but I think a delay on some products (coughMPcough) made the keynote too empty and be canceled. Then a special event was set up to unveil all products that WERE ready (iPod nano, iTunes 5).

Originally, under the black cloth, there was an Intel Wireless (Centrino) Mighty Mouse with a G5 Mighty Mouse as backup "Just in case" and at the last minute both were scrapped. Intel wanted thier logo to be bigger than the Apple logo and the G5's were causing third degree burns to users palms. :rolleyes:

Lacero
Sep 20, 2005, 09:12 AM
It's odd to see Steve out and about on the show floor. He's like God walking the streets of NY or something.

iGary
Sep 20, 2005, 09:15 AM
It's odd to see Steve out and about on the show floor. He's like God walking the streets of NY or something.

It is weird, isn't it?

g4cubed
Sep 20, 2005, 09:21 AM
It's odd to see Steve out and about on the show floor. He's like God walking the streets of NY or something.
Well, he had to make a presents since there was no keynote. ;)

~Shard~
Sep 20, 2005, 09:21 AM
i guess this means no PB's at MacWorld SF?

No Intel PBs at least. And even with that, there technically could be Intel PowerBooks unveiled at MWSF - with a shipping date of 6 months out, to align with what Steve has indicated. ;) :cool:

DC06
Sep 20, 2005, 09:22 AM
Let's not forget, the promotion for a free ipod mini with mac ends on the 24th...I could see a slim possibility of still getting new PB's by then.

*keeping my fingers crossed*

~Shard~
Sep 20, 2005, 09:22 AM
Well, he had to make a presents since there was no keynote. ;)

Oooh, what presents did he make? New PowerBooks? New PowerMacs? Is he really Santa Claus? :p :cool:

maya
Sep 20, 2005, 09:32 AM
Oooh, what presents did he make? New PowerBooks? New PowerMacs? Is he really Santa Claus? :p :cool:


I believe he is Santa, with the white beard and all. ;) :D

During christmas he wears red and white, and the rest of the year he wears black and blue jeans. :)

NeXTLoop
Sep 20, 2005, 09:36 AM
Here's one link. It's actually CNET's breaking report on the topic...

Which Macs make the switch first... (http://www.macobserver.com/article/2005/06/03.11.shtml)

Where did Apple specifically say that? It's plausible, but I haven't seen any proof of this, people just repeat after each other.

Damek
Sep 20, 2005, 09:38 AM
Originally, under the black cloth, there was an Intel Wireless (Centrino) Mighty Mouse with a G5 Mighty Mouse as backup "Just in case" and at the last minute both were scrapped. Intel wanted thier logo to be bigger than the Apple logo and the G5's were causing third degree burns to users palms. :rolleyes:

Hmm, seems to me most people around here get third degree burns on their palms from Apple hardware, it's just not from direct contact...

Damek
Sep 20, 2005, 09:39 AM
It's odd to see Steve out and about on the show floor. He's like God walking the streets of NY or something.

Not really - God walks the streets of NY every day. Trust me, I live here. Perfect place to go for a walk if you're a deity, if you ask me. No one would ever suspect...

Now, God strolling through the Himalayas, ooh what a givaway!

snkTab
Sep 20, 2005, 09:41 AM
Here's one link. It's actually CNET's breaking report on the topic...

Which Macs make the switch first... (http://www.macobserver.com/article/2005/06/03.11.shtml)

I don't trust CNET... at all.

TVGenius
Sep 20, 2005, 09:41 AM
Good. I get money for a new office computer in July... rather be a first adopter than have the model disco'd almost three years earlier...

p0intblank
Sep 20, 2005, 09:48 AM
This is very disappointing that there are no real product updates today. I am freakin' hyped for the new Power Mac G5's too... I am thinking of saving up for one. I don't think it is a bad choice with the Mactel's coming out next year. A dual dual-core PM G5 could last me at least two years. It's gonna be a beast! :D

1984
Sep 20, 2005, 09:51 AM
I don't trust CNET... at all.

Yet they were the ones who broke the news about the switch to Intel. No one believed it at the time but it was true.

"Apple to ditch IBM, switch to Intel chips" (http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9584_22-5731398.html)

emaja
Sep 20, 2005, 09:53 AM
I don't trust CNET... at all.

Aren't they the ones who broke the news and confirmed the switch to Intel?

EDIT: 1984 beat me to it.

swissmann
Sep 20, 2005, 09:53 AM
Like most everyone else - what a let down that the only thing announced was updated .Mac. Did we really expect anything differently though with no keynote?

g4cubed
Sep 20, 2005, 09:56 AM
Oooh, what presents did he make? New PowerBooks? New PowerMacs? Is he really Santa Claus? :p :cool:
What I meant was just that. He brought nothing but his face. And then not even for the keynote, but to just walk the floor.

I sure hope the afternoon will bring something...... :rolleyes:

lcde
Sep 20, 2005, 09:57 AM
Because Apple specifically said it would be the consumer line that gets upgraded first. Probably allow the "consumers" to test the products before unleasing them on the "pros." :D


That is exactly how everyone else does it. The consumer lines get the newer stuff but the pros get the tested stuff. This happened to me when I got my laptop through my schools program. Since they were using the high end business and pro laptops we couldn't get dual drives (DVD/CDRW).

This is why I really think powerbooks are in need for an update. Then the next PB update would be around the second generation intel iBooks.

g4cubed
Sep 20, 2005, 10:00 AM
I believe he is Santa, with the white beard and all. ;) :D

Does this mean we'll have to wait till Christmas to see a power update.

lcde
Sep 20, 2005, 10:03 AM
Where there any PowerBooks on the showroom floor?

wdlove
Sep 20, 2005, 10:10 AM
Nine months is certainly going to be a long wait for the first Intel Mac. Of course all of our members that are parents are well award of what it's like to wait nine months. :D

drewyboy
Sep 20, 2005, 10:25 AM
Think of it this way... who knows how long ago the last real pb update was, and think of how long it will take till the intel update. very very long time, but just think of how much time has been put into it by then. The thing will scratch your ass for you if u ask, or do your homework by you just thinking it. The new pb will just be incredible, new form factor, sweet new procs, pci-e graphics card, and just as thin if not thinning than current models. lets just say, when you are in its presence, you will be in awe!

~Shard~
Sep 20, 2005, 10:27 AM
What I meant was just that. He brought nothing but his face. And then not even for the keynote, but to just walk the floor.

Ohhh, presence, gotcha, not "presents" like you typed... :p ;)

Yes, perhaps he thought everyone would forgot to look for or ask about updated products if they were mezmorized by seeing Steve live and in person. :cool:

Steamboatwillie
Sep 20, 2005, 10:30 AM
Hmm, seems to me most people around here get third degree burns on their palms from Apple hardware, it's just not from direct contact...

Ouch! :eek:

bloodfist
Sep 20, 2005, 10:32 AM
Well...as disappointed as I am...this is only day one. What is the likelyhood of Apple annoucing something later on in the week? I mean if they announced hardware updates today, no one would be interested in anything else at the expo (like .mac, with dual core G5s, who's gonna really care about .mac?) With the rumors circulating like they are (dual core, PB updates), Apple might be trying to keep everyone on their toes and interested in the expo, and near the end, pull a "by the way", and announce the hardware updates. Sounds like a good marketing ploy to me.

I was looking forward to placing my PowerMac order sometime soon. I decided on which model last week, had to wait till this week for the expo, and now I might have to wait another week if these updates don't materialize...I might even have to wait longer than that.

Speculating is so much fun, but it also causes lots of problems...I was dreaming of these updates last night for christs sake.

-bloodfist

wdlove
Sep 20, 2005, 10:35 AM
Ohhh, presence, gotcha, not "presents" like you typed... :p ;)

Yes, perhaps he thought everyone would forgot to look for or ask about updated products if they were mesmerized by seeing Steve live and in person. :cool:

It always amazes me that the obvious questions aren't ask. Steve has to know that everyone is waiting with bated breath. If no announcements why show up. Oh of course to have his ego stroked.

EvilMole
Sep 20, 2005, 10:42 AM
It's odd to see Steve out and about on the show floor.

I've seen Jobs out and about on the show floor at US Expo's before quite a few times. He usually does a walk around the Apple booth (surrounded by his acolytes) just after the keynote. Ive, too, is often seen wandering around - and if you politely go up to him, he's usually happy to have a brief chat.

Of course, there was also the time that Jobs tried to walk around the show floor after a keynote only to be stopped from getting on to the floor by a security guy. Jobs had left his pass behind. The conversation went like this:

Apple flunky: "Don't you know who this is? You're so fired".
Security guy: "I don't care who he is. No pass, no show."
Jobs (smiling ruefully): "I'll just come back another time."

I always hoped that Jobs hired that security guy - maybe someone that zealous could stop Cupertino leaking :)

ZorPrime
Sep 20, 2005, 10:43 AM
rant/

This is sad. :mad:

I wonder if Job's is doing some roleplaying by roaming around the Expo Floor... maybe he'll start to see what his loyal customers are going through... or at least the ones holding out for a truely updated PB

edit: Those customers wishing for Apple to once more be Apple "the computer company" and not Apple "those guys who make the iPod and haggle with the music industry."

end of rant/

p0intblank
Sep 20, 2005, 10:47 AM
I was dreaming of these updates last night for christs sake.

-bloodfist

LOL! Are you serious? I had some dreams about it as well. We're so hardcore.
:cool:

Also, just wondering: are you actually buying your new Power Mac on the spot or paying it off with credit? I've been paying my PowerBook G4 off for a year now and still have a ways to go. I'm wondering if I should go the same route with the new PM... I really want one for my graphic design work and just so I have a more powerful Mac to work on. My PB is nice, but I would definitely love a dual-core G5 more. It would own me. :p

drewyboy
Sep 20, 2005, 10:52 AM
9 minutes till 9am in Cupertino time right?

unregbaron
Sep 20, 2005, 10:55 AM
£699.00
(£594.89 ex VAT)

Ready to ship: 5 days
Free Shipping
1.33GHz PowerPC G4
512K L2 cache (at 1.33GHz)
512MB memory (DDR333 SDRAM)
12.1-inch TFT Display
1024x768 resolution
ATI Mobility Radeon 9550
32MB DDR video memory
40GB Ultra ATA hard drive
Combo Drive (DVD-ROM/CD-RW)
Built-in AirPort Extreme
Built-in Bluetooth 2.0+EDR
Scrolling Trackpad
Sudden Motion Sensor






£899.00
(£765.11 ex VAT)

Ready to ship: 5 days
Free Shipping
1.42GHz PowerPC G4
512K L2 cache (at 1.42GHz)
512MB memory (DDR333 SDRAM)
14.1-inch TFT Display
1024x768 resolution
ATI Mobility Radeon 9550
32MB DDR video memory
60GB Ultra ATA hard drive
SuperDrive (DVDĪRW/CD-RW)
Built-in AirPort Extreme
Built-in Bluetooth 2.0+EDR
Scrolling Trackpad
Sudden Motion Sensor

thogs_cave
Sep 20, 2005, 11:08 AM
I was looking forward to placing my PowerMac order sometime soon. I decided on which model last week, had to wait till this week for the expo, and now I might have to wait another week if these updates don't materialize...I might even have to wait longer than that.

I've never let that drive me. If the computer does what I need it to do, then I just buy it. If I sat around worrying about what's next, I'd never get any work done.

I bought my 1st-gen G5 2.0 DP two years ago, and it was an excellent decision. Rock-solid reliable, fast, and quiet. So what if CPU speed has gone up 35% in two years? I wouldn't notice the difference except on really tough jobs, and the time saved isn't enough to worry about.

Hell, we still have happy developers at $WORK using 5-year-old G4s. If the tool does the job, who cares? Not to mention that, in my many years of systems administration, I've noticed that the "latest and greatest" often includes a headache or two.

BGil
Sep 20, 2005, 11:14 AM
Yet they were the ones who broke the news about the switch to Intel. No one believed it at the time but it was true.

"Apple to ditch IBM, switch to Intel chips" (http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9584_22-5731398.html)

As hard as this is too believe, Paul Thurrott broke the news. (http://www.windowsitpro.com/Article/ArticleID/46175/46175.html)

This one's bizarre, but we heard at lunch today that Apple is unhappy with the PowerPC production at IBM and will be switching to Intel-compatible chips this very year. Yeah, seriously.

lcde
Sep 20, 2005, 11:16 AM
Speculating is so much fun, but it also causes lots of problems...I was dreaming of these updates last night for christs sake.
-bloodfist


Good, now I don't feel so bad :)

RobHague
Sep 20, 2005, 11:26 AM
*puts fingers in ears* lalalala im not listening... intel who? lalala...

No really though, everytime i read about the latest on 'the intel transition' the bottom drops out of my gut and i wonder if i made a wise choice choosing an Apple for a few moments. I thought that Intel/AMD were trying to abandon most of the legacy stuff relating to x86 - they cant move away from it because that would be a costley and difficult step (like the Itanium). Apple are not in that position and they are moving towards it....

Anyhow as people keep saying 'Apples investment in PPC is over' and even if they keep support for PPC to keep the older users happy x86 is where the interesting stuff will happen. Will games developers for instance code a game to work on Intel and PPC CPU's??? Will it be worth it?? Will the PPC version have as much effort put into it? (lets face it some conversions are sloppy now with just PPC) or will the games just become even more thin on the ground for a while.

Don't get me wrong the powermac i bought is great, i like OSX. But it was also an expensive investment. I feel a little 'abandoned' by Apple at the moment, with all the focus on the Intel stuff it makes me feel like im just paying to clear their old stock until they get the better systems out. :(

Try not to flame cos its just my opinion and im allowed one since im paying for their products (probably) :P

However seriously if this goes the way i think it will, my newest PowerMac G5 could be the last Mac i buy. Paying a premium for Intel kit to run OSX. As great as the OS is i think ill just forget it and go back to the PC. It all depends on how Apple treat the current users.... :(

solvs
Sep 20, 2005, 11:45 AM
New ibooks? !!
Those have been out for awhile. Sorry.

oskar
Sep 20, 2005, 11:48 AM
Because Apple specifically said it would be the consumer line that gets upgraded first. Probably allow the "consumers" to test the products before unleasing them on the "pros." :D
Where did Apple specifically say that? It's plausible, but I haven't seen any proof of this, people just repeat after each other.

I haven't seen this statement on any reliable source either. AFAIK this is a rumor everybody's taken for granted already.

NeXTLoop
Sep 20, 2005, 11:51 AM
Here's a link to that statement... (http://www.macobserver.com/article/2005/06/03.11.shtml)

People will argue about CNET's reliability, but they did break/confirm the story to begin with. That being said, it would seem that the PB would be the most likely to be updated first.

I haven't seen this statement on any reliable source either. AFAIK this is a rumor everybody's taken for granted already.

oskar
Sep 20, 2005, 11:54 AM
Like most everyone else - what a let down that the only thing announced was updated .Mac. Did we really expect anything differently though with no keynote?

Well everybody was expecting a new PowerMac, not to mention minor updates to the PowerBook line.

g4cubed
Sep 20, 2005, 11:57 AM
Ohhh, presence, gotcha, not "presents" like you typed... :p ;)

Yes, perhaps he thought everyone would forgot to look for or ask about updated products if they were mezmorized by seeing Steve live and in person. :cool:
It was a play on words. But you're right about him hoping everyone would forget.

... and isn't that mesmerized. :p ;)

oskar
Sep 20, 2005, 11:59 AM
Here's a link to that statement... (http://www.macobserver.com/article/2005/06/03.11.shtml)

People will argue about CNET's reliability, but they did break/confirm the story to begin with. That being said, it would seem that the PB would be the most likely to be updated first.

That's not a statement from Apple. That's a Mac Observer article that quotes a CNET article which got reports from a WSJ as far as I can see.

~Shard~
Sep 20, 2005, 12:07 PM
It was a play on words. But you're right about him hoping everyone would forget.

... and isn't that mesmerized. :p ;)

Yes, I know, just having some fun, which I'm glad you caught onto. ;)

As for mesmerized, maybe it's "mezMORized" since people were expecting MORE from Jobs. :eek: :rolleyes: :o

oskar
Sep 20, 2005, 12:11 PM
Well...as disappointed as I am...this is only day one. What is the likelyhood of Apple annoucing something later on in the week? I mean if they announced hardware updates today, no one would be interested in anything else at the expo (like .mac, with dual core G5s, who's gonna really care about .mac?) With the rumors circulating like they are (dual core, PB updates), Apple might be trying to keep everyone on their toes and interested in the expo, and near the end, pull a "by the way", and announce the hardware updates. Sounds like a good marketing ploy to me.

I was looking forward to placing my PowerMac order sometime soon. I decided on which model last week, had to wait till this week for the expo, and now I might have to wait another week if these updates don't materialize...I might even have to wait longer than that.

Speculating is so much fun, but it also causes lots of problems...I was dreaming of these updates last night for christs sake.

-bloodfist

You said it. Speculating is fun. But it is highly unlikely Apple would give less time in an expo to what could probably sell more.

BHarris
Sep 20, 2005, 12:13 PM
So what about that stupid, mysterious, goodie concealing tarp? :o

bloodfist
Sep 20, 2005, 12:17 PM
So what about that stupid, mysterious, goodie concealing tarp? :o

I think they said that was the .mac setup...I think.

What I was thinking they would do when the expo closes one night, they setup another booth with the updated PB and PM in it. Of course it would be covered like the .mac one was until it would open the next day.

just a guess/hope.

-bloodfist

g4cubed
Sep 20, 2005, 12:19 PM
Yes, I know, just having some fun, which I'm glad you caught onto. ;)

As for mesmerized, maybe it's "mezMORized" since people were expecting MORE from Jobs. :eek: :rolleyes: :oYeah I knew ;)
For the life of me I can't remember the commercial that said "less is more." Maybe that's what SJ was thinking. :confused:

MacFan782040
Sep 20, 2005, 12:40 PM
Maybe there was iPod nano socks behind the black cloth.

NeXTLoop
Sep 20, 2005, 12:46 PM
You're right. I thought it was from Apple, but was wrong. Like I said, personally I think the PB is the best candidate for the first MacTels.

That's not a statement from Apple. That's a Mac Observer article that quotes a CNET article which got reports from a WSJ as far as I can see.

BHarris
Sep 20, 2005, 12:50 PM
Are there any iBooks or PB on display? i know I am reaching, I am just hoping .Mac wasn't "it" :o

SiliconAddict
Sep 20, 2005, 01:16 PM
rant/

This is sad. :mad:

I wonder if Job's is doing some roleplaying by roaming around the Expo Floor... maybe he'll start to see what his loyal customers are going through... or at least the ones holding out for a truely updated PB

edit: Those customers wishing for Apple to once more be Apple "the computer company" and not Apple "those guys who make the iPod and haggle with the music industry."

end of rant/

God people. If there is no water in a cup, its empty. If there are no options other then an x86 PowerBook then you wait until its ready. Itís that simply. Everyone needs to pull their panties out of their crotch and cool off. A PowerBook will be released as soon as itís ready. I'm pretty sure that Jobs isn't hold the bloody thing back because he loves to seem people screeching like chimps who had their banana taken away from them. It will come when it comes.

sw1tcher
Sep 20, 2005, 01:30 PM
Let's not forget, the promotion for a free ipod mini with mac ends on the 24th...I could see a slim possibility of still getting new PB's by then.

*keeping my fingers crossed*

New PB's on the 24th? A Saturday? You must mean on Tuesday, the 27th.

EDIT...

G5 PB's on Tuesday!

SiliconAddict
Sep 20, 2005, 01:31 PM
However seriously if this goes the way i think it will, my newest PowerMac G5 could be the last Mac i buy. Paying a premium for Intel kit to run OSX. As great as the OS is i think ill just forget it and go back to the PC. It all depends on how Apple treat the current users.... :(


That makes absolutely NO sense. So you are complaining about Apple going to a different platform so you threaten to change OS's and still go back to that platform anyways. Please enlighten me how this is any different then two people arguing that their cup of water is better then the other guys even though its being pulled from the same faucet? I'm not getting sucked into a 3 page post like I've done the last two times about the transition. Suffice it to say Apple needs to do this transition. Period. Its painful but it has to be done and its not like they aren't going to support PPC hardware for the foreseeable future. x86 system won't be in the majority for a LONG LONG LONG time. Easily 3+ years. In that time developers will create cross platform binaries and life will be OK. Not great but OK. :confused:

digitalbiker
Sep 20, 2005, 01:32 PM
God people. If there is no water in a cup, its empty. If there are no options other then an x86 PowerBook then you wait until its ready. Itís that simply. Everyone needs to pull their panties out of their crotch and cool off. A PowerBook will be released as soon as itís ready. I'm pretty sure that Jobs isn't hold the bloody thing back because he loves to seem people screeching like chimps who had their banana taken away from them. It will come when it comes.

True, but it kind of makes you wonder if there isn't some kind of power play going between Apple and IBM.

I mean first Apple makes surprize announcement about Intel switch. Second IBM states they are shocked and announce low-power notebook ready G5 processors as well as dual core G5 cpu. Third Apple schedules big keynote with Steve Jobs for Paris. Then cancels said keynote two weeks before the event, even as Expo participants receive keynote passes.

Now the big hidden secret, behind the black cloth is dot mac storage going to 1 GB. How lame has this company become?

Sounds more like something going on behind the scenes that Jobs was not prepared to deal with.

SiliconAddict
Sep 20, 2005, 01:47 PM
If anything I am soooooo going to welcome WWDC í06 because its probably going to usher in the halfway mark for the x86 transition and hopefully will make people stop the senseless and pointless complaining. I swear half of the comments on any thread dealing with x86 is so totally off on the facts we know or have been told that it makes me wonder how long after the transition beings its going to take before people wake up to the fresh ground aroma of a clue that Apple isnít trying to screw people over. Apple isnít doing this for ****s and giggles. Jobs isnít doing this to spite IBM and Moto. Apple isn't going to abandon the PPC overnight. And there is a very real need to get to a platform that can meet demand and push out new chips on a quarterly basis that isnít just speedbumping along like roadkill.
Is it really too much to ask that people sit down take a deep breath and stop bitching for 6 months? *sighs* I guess so.
:(

Rod Rod
Sep 20, 2005, 01:49 PM
Since Intel Macs are on schedule for June 2006, they'll ship with Tiger.

There will be no retail boxed versions of Tiger for x86 (or with universal binaries). Tiger's successor, Leopard, will ship with universal binaries.

In the same vein, iLife '06 will likely ship pre-installed on x86 Macs so the universal binary version doesn't need to be in the retail boxed version. However, if Apple puts universal binary versions of Tiger and iLife in retail boxes it will be for their convenience and not for any real need from consumers, because x86 Macs will have all of that pre-installed.

Tiger on the first x86 Macs will likely be version number 10.4.4 or 10.4.5.

MontyZ
Sep 20, 2005, 01:53 PM
.

ZorPrime
Sep 20, 2005, 02:12 PM
God people. If there is no water in a cup, its empty. If there are no options other then an x86 PowerBook then you wait until its ready. Itís that simply. Everyone needs to pull their panties out of their crotch and cool off. A PowerBook will be released as soon as itís ready. I'm pretty sure that Jobs isn't hold the bloody thing back because he loves to seem people screeching like chimps who had their banana taken away from them. It will come when it comes.

I could care less about processors etc. As anything I purchase will be signigicantly faster than what I already have. As far as no options, i do not know. Last time I checked, high density WUXGAs are available today. A company, always has options. If Apple could pull off a deal with Samsung and get flash at prefered rates and 8 or so months later release the nano, Apple could mod some things w/ tech that's available today and at least put a WUXGA in their 17" PB. If Apple's proverbial cup was empty it would be out of business. I think the cup is half empty right now, especially for Apple's "high end" portables.

RobHague
Sep 20, 2005, 02:15 PM
That makes absolutely NO sense. So you are complaining about Apple going to a different platform so you threaten to change OS's and still go back to that platform anyways. Please enlighten me how this is any different then two people arguing that their cup of water is better then the other guys even though its being pulled from the same faucet? I'm not getting sucked into a 3 page post like I've done the last two times about the transition. Suffice it to say Apple needs to do this transition. Period. Its painful but it has to be done and its not like they aren't going to support PPC hardware for the foreseeable future. x86 system won't be in the majority for a LONG LONG LONG time. Easily 3+ years. In that time developers will create cross platform binaries and life will be OK. Not great but OK. :confused:

Well im saying that if Apple treat PPC users badley after the 'transition' (i.e. drop PPC like a brick and push Intel to solve all woes) and the new Mactels are not as special as everyone assumed (i.e. you can get the same CPU's for much less elsewhere without the apple logo and OSX) then im not going to support them again....I had this funny, crazy idea when i was thinking about going with an Apple Mac that i would get a little more support. That apple stuck by their products (upgrades sure, i expect those) but not that they would dump the platform again and jump to Intel to save more £££ to make more profit? I thought it was one of the reasons they were popular amoung people - Quality and Longevity. OSX is nice but not specifically the only reason i bought a Mac.

If you buy a PC with a Pentium 4 today it might be outdated when the "Pentium 5" and "6" arrives say, but they are still x86 and it will still run new software. Even games (just not as well). Going from PPC to x86 isnt the same, dumping one platform for another. Not to mention the fact that its going to be a disaster id imagine for while after even if your on the otherside of the fence - I mean until all the transitioning is sorted and PPC is gone completley. What if Intel arent offering what Apple want at some point too? Are they going to do a back flip and look elsewhere again....

I was hoping Apples market share would get bigger meaning more companys/developers would jump on board and support the platform with their software. Now they have to support x86 and PPC to be 'Mac Compatible' and im sure there will be sacrifices for compatibility (like less time spent optimizing for PPC).

Just my 2c. Don't have to agree with me but its just how i feel at teh moment :confused:

treblah
Sep 20, 2005, 02:17 PM
Third Apple schedules big keynote with Steve Jobs for Paris. Then cancels said keynote two weeks before the event, even as Expo participants receive keynote passes.

Now the big hidden secret, behind the black cloth is dot mac storage going to 1 GB. How lame has this company become?

Show me where Apple confirmed a Jobs Keynote.

Seriously, seeing a few shots of the convention center while it was being put together and the view of a black cloth has people going nuts? Did Apple say 'Behind this black cloth we have a BIG HIDDEN SECRET!' No. Logic should have told you that 'no Keynote = nothing good,' slights bumps maybe, but nothing big.

oskar
Sep 20, 2005, 02:24 PM
Is it really too much to ask that people sit down take a deep breath and stop bitching for 6 months? *sighs* I guess so.
:(

The problem is that it's six more months. The PowerMac, PowerBook and even the iBook have seen no major updates in quite a long time. Six months is a very very long time. People are becoming desperate.
There could still be small updates in the next few week, can't there?

oskar
Sep 20, 2005, 02:31 PM
Show me where Apple confirmed a Jobs Keynote.
The point was that there was no keynote as would be expected, not that it was confirmed at any time. Last year there was a keynote where Jobs couldn't attend and now that he could, he opted for a question and answer session.

vks3
Sep 20, 2005, 02:34 PM
I think that not making a major announcement was probably a smart move - why steal thunder from the iPod nano? Apple's going to need strong Christmas sales for that little wonder. Chances are, all we'll be seeing in the near future are minor speed increases to the product line.

On another thought, I've been doing a lot of thinking about what the "next big thing" for apple could be. I know this isn't the appropriate thread, but I'm not sure where to post this, and I'd like to see people's input. My apologies if this really annoys people, but this is my first post, so cut me some slack. :-)

So, hereís my thinking:

I believe that the ability to take TV programs with you on the go will be the ďnext big thing.Ē I believe this is much more appealing than full-length movies. In my experience, people really do like watching movies at home, on a big screen. Although it would be great to be able to take full length movies with you on a PSP-like portable device, I just donít think the experience is that good.

However, the ability to take TV shows and shorter programs with you on-the-go is much more appealing to our lifestyles. Think about it. If you have a few minutes to sit down and watch ďThe Daily Show,Ē or ďSeinfeld,Ē or whatever, that can be a good use of your time. But is it really attractive to sit down and watch a whole movie? In that case, you might as well use your laptop, where youíll get a larger screen. But often, you donít want to have to devote the attention and energy that a whole movie requires. You want something to pass the time, to give you some light amusement and entertainment.

What Apple should create is a TiVo application (letís call it, iTV) that runs on your computer. iTV would be able to interface with the TV through an Airport Express-like box connected to your TV. iTV would have an ITunes like interface, allowing you to ďsearchĒ for programs and schedule them for download. Your downloaded programs would be categorized and downloaded similar to the way your music is in ITunes.

The key would be to make it so that the TV programs would be stored on the computer itself, not in the living room box.

I think people would prefer to use iTV rather than their remote control. I donít have TiVO, I have a DVR service through my cable company, and using a remote is a pain. iTV would be so much easier and intuitive, and would round off the iLife suite beautifully.

The living room box could run an application similar to that of the iTV application Iíve described, but perhaps a reduced version that operates kind of like the iPod menus. Hell, the remote could essentially be the iPod click wheel.

Music, photos, movies, TV shows Ė all content could then be uploaded to an iPod or new apple PSP-type device.

Actually, now Iím stretching it here, in fact, if flash-based memory becomes large enough, and if something the size of the iPod nano could hold a great deal of memory, then perhaps the iPod nano could be inserted into a PSP-like device, like a cartridge. The PSP device could then read everything from the nano. This would eliminate the need to transfer files unnecessarily. Also, this adds more flexibility Ė you donít want to carry around a PSP all the time. Sometimes a nano is all you want. But if you want to use the PSP, you can just insert the nano like a memory stick.

I think creating an iApp that moves the functions of the TiVo to your computer would be very, very effective.

Again, my apologies for posting an unrelated thought to this thread...

-Vik

digitalbiker
Sep 20, 2005, 02:42 PM
Show me where Apple confirmed a Jobs Keynote.

Seriously, seeing a few shots of the convention center while it was being put together and the view of a black cloth has people going nuts? Did Apple say 'Behind this black cloth we have a BIG HIDDEN SECRET!' No. Logic should have told you that 'no Keynote = nothing good,' slights bumps maybe, but nothing big.

Yes, Apple did officially announce a keynote. It was on their website for several months. The attendee's even received their badges and passes for the keynote. It was cancelled at the last minute. All of which is fine but it is just highly unusual, it hadn't happenned before.

Apple always keeps their new product secret behind closed doors and black drapes. When they did it again many people assumed it was a new product. The dot mac announcement is a big step down from previous porduct annoucements of this type.

~Shard~
Sep 20, 2005, 02:46 PM
God people. If there is no water in a cup, its empty. If there are no options other then an x86 PowerBook then you wait until its ready. Itís that simply. Everyone needs to pull their panties out of their crotch and cool off. A PowerBook will be released as soon as itís ready. I'm pretty sure that Jobs isn't hold the bloody thing back because he loves to seem people screeching like chimps who had their banana taken away from them. It will come when it comes.

Let me just say thank you for showing me I'm not the only rational person here. :cool:

digitalbiker
Sep 20, 2005, 03:09 PM
If anything I am soooooo going to welcome WWDC í06 because its probably going to usher in the halfway mark for the x86 transition and hopefully will make people stop the senseless and pointless complaining. I swear half of the comments on any thread dealing with x86 is so totally off on the facts we know or have been told that it makes me wonder how long after the transition beings its going to take before people wake up to the fresh ground aroma of a clue that Apple isnít trying to screw people over. Apple isnít doing this for ****s and giggles. Jobs isnít doing this to spite IBM and Moto. Apple isn't going to abandon the PPC overnight. And there is a very real need to get to a platform that can meet demand and push out new chips on a quarterly basis that isnít just speedbumping along like roadkill.
Is it really too much to ask that people sit down take a deep breath and stop bitching for 6 months? *sighs* I guess so.
:(

Whooaa, chill out Addict!

You have to remember that long term Apple users have gone through this before and each time the users are the ones that have to grin and bear it.

The last transition from OS 9 to OS X was a costly transistion for me. Both in lack of productivity ,farting around with OS X trying to make it work correctly, and having to buy all new software. For many months I was emulating in classic or dual booting to an old OS 9 version to run applications that weren't ready for OSX. Months waiting for OS X drivers on printers, scanners, etc because vendor were slow to transition. Key software was slow to transition. Apple took free features like iMovie, iPhoto, and .mac and made them pay features.

Now we are suppose to wait months and months for new x86 hardware based macs that again won't have native software, will require major dollars to upgrade pro versions, and there is no guarantee that Apple will even stay competitive with Dell in terms of hardware.

Software vendors such as Adobe are already warning that it is going to be a long time before native x86 mac apps are available.

Many of the long term Apple users thought that Apple would have invested more of those R&D dollars in improving the PPC spec. If Apple had worked with IBM and invested in the PPC tech, they could have improved the FSB situation, and produced low power chips sooner that would have easily competed with Intel's lagacy latent x86 technology. Apple and IBM had their chance to shine and blew it! Funny now that everyone seems to be shifting to PPC/Cell or away from x86, Apple is now shifting toward it.

Sorry for the rant! But I hate when Apple users are blasted for complaining when they have every right to complain considering the state of Apple Computer right now and the things users have had to deal with over the last two transitions.

Stella
Sep 20, 2005, 03:11 PM
Your forgetting Apple released hardware not two weeks ago.. the Nano, iTunes phone ( regardless how much it sucks, apple didn't do the hardware) and iTunes 5.

Had these announcements not been made two weeks ago, they would have been today.

Apple made the right decision to go to Intel. IBM promised processors and couldn't deliver. Apple are not going to revamp their entire computer line with new PPC processors ( when they aren't available in great numbers) and when they will release new Intel based computers mid 2006.

Processors are Intel's main business, they rely on making processors and selling them, without supply constraints. Intel will excel in this department where IBM and Moto / Freescale failed woefully.


[QUOTE=digitalbiker
Now the big hidden secret, behind the black cloth is dot mac storage going to 1 GB. How lame has this company become?
[/QUOTE]

SiliconAddict
Sep 20, 2005, 03:25 PM
True, but it kind of makes you wonder if there isn't some kind of power play going between Apple and IBM.

I mean first Apple makes surprize announcement about Intel switch. Second IBM states they are shocked and announce low-power notebook ready G5 processors as well as dual core G5 cpu. Third Apple schedules big keynote with Steve Jobs for Paris. Then cancels said keynote two weeks before the event, even as Expo participants receive keynote passes.

Now the big hidden secret, behind the black cloth is dot mac storage going to 1 GB. How lame has this company become?

Sounds more like something going on behind the scenes that Jobs was not prepared to deal with.

No. It sounds like IBM is pissed that Apple basically told them to screw off and left them hanging. So what does IBM do? All of a sudden a G5 CPU that can handle being in a PowerBook arrives. $10 says that itís a bluff. IBM knows it will NEVER show up in a laptop and obviously no one else is clamoring for a G5 Mobile CPU so they won't have to worry about Dell showing up on their step to ask for this. So no worries about actually needing to prove it exists.
Itís a song and dance show to make Apple look like they were full of it. Seriously. If IBM had such a chip at that point Apple would have been shipping 3Ghz G5 PowerMacs at MWSF or WWDC instead of pushing out a transition plan.
As for Apple Expo. *shrugs* Maybe they were planning on doing the whole iPod thing and decided to release it earlier suddenly to find they have nothing else to present. What was Jobs expected to do? Do a little jig on stage? More Tiger demos? I don't blame them. They are suck between a product launch and a hard place.

MacsRgr8
Sep 20, 2005, 03:37 PM
Whooaa, chill out Addict!

You have to remember that long term Apple users have gone through this before and each time the users are the ones that have to grin and bear it.

The last transition from OS 9 to OS X was a costly transistion for me. Both in lack of productivity ,farting around with OS X trying to make it work correctly, and having to buy all new software. For many months I was emulating in classic or dual booting to an old OS 9 version to run applications that weren't ready for OSX. Months waiting for OS X drivers on printers, scanners, etc because vendor were slow to transition. Key software was slow to transition. Apple took free features like iMovie, iPhoto, and .mac and made them pay features.

Now we are suppose to wait months and months for new x86 hardware based macs that again won't have native software, will require major dollars to upgrade pro versions, and there is no guarantee that Apple will even stay competitive with Dell in terms of hardware.

Software vendors such as Adobe are already warning that it is going to be a long time before native x86 mac apps are available.

Many of the long term Apple users thought that Apple would have invested more of those R&D dollars in improving the PPC spec. If Apple had worked with IBM and invested in the PPC tech, they could have improved the FSB situation, and produced low power chips sooner that would have easily competed with Intel's lagacy latent x86 technology. Apple and IBM had their chance to shine and blew it! Funny now that everyone seems to be shifting to PPC/Cell or away from x86, Apple is now shifting toward it.

Sorry for the rant! But I hate when Apple users are blasted for complaining when they have every right to complain considering the state of Apple Computer right now and the things users have had to deal with over the last two transitions.

I understand the complaining, but I think Apple made the correct choice. I'm sure Apple tried everything to keep with with PPC, but it had let Apple down many times in the past.
When the G4 was introduced @ 500 MHz in 1999, all seemed bright and beautiful. But then the wait..... it took 18 months for Apple / Motorola to go faster than 500 MHz (they even stepped DOWN 50 MHz!). So halfway 2000 Apple decided to introduce "Two Brains Are Better Than One". We went Dual. At that time it didn't bring that much extra value. Mac OS 9 was not designed for SMP, and almost all the (Pro) apps couldn't utilize the 2nd CPU. Adobe introduced a SMP plug-in for Photoshop.... but, that's pretty much it.
Ever since all topmodels PowerMac have had Dual CPU configs. I bet that costs Apple pretty much, probably lowering the profit margin on every Dual PowerMac sold.
And also ever since, Apple has had to fight a lost battle regarding CPU speed. Lower Mhz, a terrible FSB all added up to a worse-than-Intel performance computer.
Enter IBM. Problem solved.... well, postponed really.
Summer 2003 Apple finally introduced the G5. This 64 bit CPU, with a super fast FSB in Dual configs would bridge the gap with Intel / AMD. It did.... the first year. Then Steve made that infamous promise..... And he couldn't keep it. No PowerBook G5s.... XBox 360 using the 970 CPU.... it all added up: Steve couldn't trust IBM's commitment anymore in them supplying Apple enough super fast PPC CPU for in the Macs. Nor can Apple believe in IBM giving full attention and funds for the R&D of the G5.
So he went to the only provider of CPUs of whom he knows he can't have the same supply problems as IBM / Motorola.... Also the CPU manufacturer which delivers the CPU to which everyone seems to compare its product..... If you can't beat them.... join them: Intel.
And ever since NeXTSTEP, OPENSTEP, Rhapsody, Mac OS X has alwas been "ready" for x86, "just in case".
Ofcourse we'll get some rough times when running software in "Rosetta mode", or software which just will be incompatible, no Classic support etc.
But that is short-term thinking.
In a couple of years, we'll be used to x86 binaries on our Mac, running super fast. Many games coming to our platform. small x86 Linux utilites ported to x86 Mac OS X, etc.
And face it. 90% of the users will never know what a MacTel is. It will still feel like a Mac, look like a Mac, run Mac software... in short: it still IS a Mac.

sjo
Sep 20, 2005, 03:45 PM
Apple made the right decision to go to Intel. IBM promised processors and couldn't deliver.

Well Intels track record of keeping their roadmap or the promised advancements in the delivered products is not quite perfect either you know. There's really no guarantee of the performance of the chips before sampling and no guarantee of the ability to deliver those in volume until they are in production.

Stella
Sep 20, 2005, 03:59 PM
Well Intels track record of keeping their roadmap or the promised advancements in the delivered products is not quite perfect either you know. There's really no guarantee of the performance of the chips before sampling and no guarantee of the ability to deliver those in volume until they are in production.

True, especially with the recent transition to smaller processor sizes.

I'd bet $10 that Intel would prove to be more reliable than IBM or Moto though.

digitalbiker
Sep 20, 2005, 04:04 PM
I understand the complaining, but I think Apple made the correct choice. in short: it still IS a Mac.

I understand that it hasn't been easy for Apple considering the problems with cpu supply.

But I am not convinced that Intel will be the savior. Dell rules in the Intel world, they update their offerings almost weekly. They allow customer built customization, they build and deliver fast, on time, have excellent customer support, and extremely low profit margins.

Apple updates once or twice a year per product line. They allow minimal customization, and their profit margins are much greater because their volumes are lower. They have always operated this way, even back in the Apple II days.

I wonder how long people will continue to support paying higher prices for the OS X / iLife experience when Dell will be offering identical and in most cases better more recent Intel hardware configurations.

Also developers will now have to once again invest time rewriting their code to capture a very small OS X for x86 market. I wonder how many vendors will just drop Apple all together and only make x86 windows versions. The logic would be that Apple users could use wine, VPC, or something similar to run their applications.

AidenShaw
Sep 20, 2005, 04:05 PM
... XBox 360 using the 970 CPU ...
Please, the Xbox 360 CPU is much simpler than the 970, it is not even out-of-order. That's why it's triple core at 3.2 GHz, not because of some conspiracy by IBM against Apple.

http://arstechnica.com/articles/paedia/cpu/xbox360-2.ars/1

"From ILP to TLP, from the processor to the programmer

The basic idea behind both Cell and Xenon [Xbox360] is to make the execution core less complex by stripping out hardware that's intended to optimize instruction scheduling at runtime.

Neither the Xenon nor the Cell have an instruction window, which means that these two processor designs largely forget about instruction-level parallelism. Instead, instructions pass through the processor in the order in which they're fetched, with the twist that two adjacent, non-dependent instructions are executed in parallel where possible.

This static execution scheme is pretty much the same one used in older, less complex designs, like the original Intel Pentium.

Static execution is simple to implement and takes up much less die space than dynamic execution, since the processor doesn't need to spend a lot of transistors on the instruction window and related hardware. Those transistors that the lack of an instruction window frees up can be used to put more actual execution units on the die. "

Read the entire article if you'd like to learn more about how the Xbox, Cell and PPC970 differ.

barbee
Sep 20, 2005, 04:28 PM
It's rather interesting to see what's gonna happen here when Apple releases Intel computers to the masses. Apple is known to announce news when it's just about right. They usually ship their stuff immediately after the announcements, more or less anyway.

My thought brings me to OS X on regular X86 machines i.e. regular PC:s from other suppliers. What if this happens? After all, Apple has no reason to feed Microsoft with such information. It's better shooting the software giant in the back just in time.

I would like to see OS X on regular PC:s. That would probably increase sales big time, but it doesn't sound like a Steve Jobs plan.

SiliconAddict
Sep 20, 2005, 05:20 PM
I would like to see OS X on regular PC:s. That would probably increase sales big time, but it doesn't sound like a Steve Jobs plan.


And it isn't. Its possible long term they might consider this for a handful of OEM's for a very specific product line. (Think Mac Mini made my HP ot Toshiba.) but cross the board lic of X to whoever? Not in Jobs's lifetime.

aegisdesign
Sep 20, 2005, 07:07 PM
Apple made the right decision to go to Intel. IBM promised processors and couldn't deliver. Apple are not going to revamp their entire computer line with new PPC processors ( when they aren't available in great numbers) and when they will release new Intel based computers mid 2006.

Processors are Intel's main business, they rely on making processors and selling them, without supply constraints. Intel will excel in this department where IBM and Moto / Freescale failed woefully.


That's really only one side of the issue.

Both IBM and Freescale have been on record saying that Apple aren't entirely innocent here.

Apple's modus operandi is to order low quantities of a CPU at a time so they don't have lots of inventory backed up. And they expect big discounts still. Occasionally that bites them on their behind because IBM and Freescale are busy producing chips for customers who order millions - Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo - so they miss a production slot. If they unexpectedly have a hit on their hands, they run out.

Secondly, IBM and Apple seem to have been betting on the G5 being picked up more by other companies and for whatever reason that didn't happen. With the G5 starved of investment and Apple not willing to spend it's own money seemingly on G5 development, it stagnated. And Sony/Microsoft/Nintendo bankrolled IBM's development team to work for them instead. You can perhaps blame IBM here for not selling it outside Apple and it's own blade servers but that's the reality of it.

I still think it's a big pity that Apple have gone Intel. It now means they can never be faster than the Windows herd and they've tied their dingy to the Wintel legacy steamboat. The 32bit Intel architecture is something developers have been trying to bury for decades.

I guess we'll never know if the switch is really the right thing to do because the likelihood of IBM taking the G5 development forward now is even less likely without a major customer. I'm sure we'll see many 'I told you so' comments from the short of thinking when no G5 upgrades surface at the time Yonah ships. I really don't think it's because IBM can't but more that someone won't pay them for it.

I'm sure Apple have done the right thing for their shareholders since they are now going to be no worse that Windows hardware and won't ever lag behind. Paying billions for CPU development which may not yield faster chips when you can guarantee to be an also ran for free must be an easy decision to make financially. But there is and were architectural advantages to the PowerPC that you just don't get with Intel that sadden a geeks heart. I'm sure there are enough people at Apple that are cut up about it, but equally many that realise it was an expensive gamble.

aegisdesign
Sep 20, 2005, 07:22 PM
I'm sure Apple tried everything to keep with with PPC, but it had let Apple down many times in the past.


Other than spending more money on it. IBM don't create faster processors for you out of the goodness of their hearts you know. The G5 CPU isn't a commodity component like an Intel CPU.


Ever since all topmodels PowerMac have had Dual CPU configs. I bet that costs Apple pretty much, probably lowering the profit margin on every Dual PowerMac sold.



In theory, no. The G5 has a fraction of the transistors of an Intel chip in it so is much cheaper to produce. Economies of scale come into it but I don't think that CPU cost is that major a factor.


Steve couldn't trust IBM's commitment anymore in them supplying Apple enough super fast PPC CPU for in the Macs. Nor can Apple believe in IBM giving full attention and funds for the R&D of the G5.


More like Apple weren't prepared to pay IBM.


So he went to the only provider of CPUs of whom he knows he can't have the same supply problems as IBM / Motorola.... Also the CPU manufacturer which delivers the CPU to which everyone seems to compare its product..... If you can't beat them.... join them: Intel.


Yep. Why risk becoming a lion when you can be a sheep.


In a couple of years, we'll be used to x86 binaries on our Mac, running super fast. Many games coming to our platform. small x86 Linux utilites ported to x86 Mac OS X, etc.


I hope so. On the other hand, we could have many games developers and application developers just telling us to run Windows binaries and porting x86 Linux utilities is often no more difficult that typing 'fink install (application)' now on PPC so that's not a big deal.

Also, I'm not looking forward to Software Update when we've got Universal Binaries. Better hope I've 8Mbps broadband before the increased binary size.

pagartimun
Sep 20, 2005, 08:03 PM
Is there justice?! :(

~Shard~
Sep 20, 2005, 08:36 PM
Is there justice?! :(

No one ever said life was fair!

jaw04005
Sep 20, 2005, 09:46 PM
Apple, please just DON'T use Intel's integrated graphics in shipping products. :mad:

Although the low-end GeForce 5200 and GeForce FX Go5200 are pieces of crap anyway.

bigrustyjc
Sep 20, 2005, 09:53 PM
I'm new to the whole Apple scene, especially when it comes to new products. I'm looking to get a new Powerbook, and I was hoping that Apple would release an upgrade in Paris.

Is this still possible?

I currently dont' own any mac hardware, and was seriously looking to purchase the latest and greatest powerbook. But now I'm starting to wonder if i should invest in a company who doesn't really keep up with the speed of updates of other companies. Almost a year delay between updates of their signature Pro laptop is poor in my eyes.

Anyone have any ideas or thoughts on this? When will the newest one come? Will there be one before the Mactels come out? I don't wanna wait another year for a mac upgrade!

And it seems pretty lame to me to have a world expo, but only introduce a software upgrade, not even something completely new.

lcde
Sep 20, 2005, 10:31 PM
I'm new to the whole Apple scene, especially when it comes to new products. I'm looking to get a new Powerbook, and I was hoping that Apple would release an upgrade in Paris.

Is this still possible?

I currently dont' own any mac hardware, and was seriously looking to purchase the latest and greatest powerbook. But now I'm starting to wonder if i should invest in a company who doesn't really keep up with the speed of updates of other companies. Almost a year delay between updates of their signature Pro laptop is poor in my eyes.

Anyone have any ideas or thoughts on this? When will the newest one come? Will there be one before the Mactels come out? I don't wanna wait another year for a mac upgrade!

And it seems pretty lame to me to have a world expo, but only introduce a software upgrade, not even something completely new.

Read pages 1-4.

bigwig
Sep 20, 2005, 11:16 PM
Software vendors such as Adobe are already warning that it is going to be a long time before native x86 mac apps are available.

Which is, quite frankly, rather odd. Everything about Adobe's existing MacOSX products should be a simple recompile, except for optimized machine code for their video processing routines (Gaussian blur, unsharp mask, whatever) which already exists for their Windows-native products. They aren't developing SSE2-optimized code from scratch, after all. It should be straight plug-and-play, right?

dongmin
Sep 20, 2005, 11:40 PM
That is exactly how everyone else does it. The consumer lines get the newer stuff but the pros get the tested stuff. This happened to me when I got my laptop through my schools program. Since they were using the high end business and pro laptops we couldn't get dual drives (DVD/CDRW).Umm, no. Apple always introduces new technologies in its Pro lines. The reason is simple: new technologies cost more. So they're gonna put it in a computer that they can charge more, i.e. the PowerBook.

The trick with this transition is that this is as much a software transition as it is a hardware transition. Rosetta is the big wildcard here. If it can emulate the Adobe and Microsoft apps at a reasonable speed (60%+), then, with the significant improvements in the CPU and architecture, users may actually see across-the-board speed increases in its pro apps, native or not. If Rosetta can emulate Adobe CS and Microsoft Office AND Apple has its pro apps ready for Intel, I don't see why Apple wouldn't release Intel PowerBooks. I know I'd be lining up to get one (especially if I can run AutoCAD & Rhino in a virtual machine at near full speed).

AidenShaw
Sep 20, 2005, 11:47 PM
Which is, quite frankly, rather odd. Everything about Adobe's existing MacOSX products should be a simple recompile, except for optimized machine code for their video processing routines (Gaussian blur, unsharp mask, whatever) which already exists for their Windows-native products. They aren't developing SSE2-optimized code from scratch, after all. It should be straight plug-and-play, right?
There are endian issues....

There are operating system dependencies that need to be separated from the processor dependencies.... (Does the code say "if windows" when it really means "if x86"? Does "if MacOSX" mean OSX or PPC?)

The "simple recompiles" are the trivial programs, or things that have been running for years on many different platforms - and all those dependencies have been sorted out through years of coding and debugging. (Darwin, OpenStep, Mathematica)

There's testing, testing, testing and testing.

AidenShaw
Sep 20, 2005, 11:51 PM
(especially if I can run AutoCAD & Rhino in a virtual machine at near full speed)
Don't expect to run things that depend on OpenGL, DirectX or other graphics acceleration.

Virtual machines (even x86 on x86) usually emulate a pretty primitive graphics card.

Pure compute performance will be 80% or better - and even better than that when Vanderpool is supported by VPC (and when Apple starts using Vanderpool chips).

Arnaud
Sep 21, 2005, 02:37 AM
Which is, quite frankly, rather odd. Everything about Adobe's existing MacOSX products should be a simple recompile, except for optimized machine code for their video processing routines (Gaussian blur, unsharp mask, whatever) which already exists for their Windows-native products. They aren't developing SSE2-optimized code from scratch, after all. It should be straight plug-and-play, right?

Uh, I think people at Adobe (between others) must be a little annoyed of the wind changing every other year at Apple's...

They started with the CISC 68xxx, then had to recompile for the RISC PowerPC (which could otherwise only emulate the CISC), then modify for OS X / Unix (or run under the OS 9 interface in OS X with sometimes funny results), and now have to recompile again to Intel...

I don't think there are many "straightforward" ways, I guess transporting a Wintel software to the future Mactel platform will ask many hours of debugging and adapting to the specificities of Apple choices / OS etc... ?

Did Adobe bear the same workload from the Wintel world ? I really don't know what the evolution of CPU's and OS's implied for the programmers on the Wintel side during the last 15 years, light adaptations or heavy recompilation ?

iMeowbot
Sep 21, 2005, 02:46 AM
Uh, I think people at Adobe (between others) must be a little annoyed of the wind changing every other year at Apple's...
Yeah, it's a pity, now poor Adobe will have to once again collect upgrade fees from all those people who like to run old software versions.

Arnaud
Sep 21, 2005, 04:11 AM
Yeah, it's a pity, now poor Adobe will have to once again collect upgrade fees from all those people who like to run old software versions.

Mmm, maybe I oversaw this side of Adobe's marketing policy...

But I'm more concerned by the delays in providing adapted versions, which can push customers to Windows instead of OSX (the usual "we thought about changing our whole computer group for OS X, but having to wait 6 months for adapted versions of the software convinced us to invest in a Windows solution; yeah, we know, it sucks, but at least we can work for 6 months").

And less customers from Apple = less rentability for Apple development in Adobe = less budget for Apple development in Adobe = more delays = less customers from Apple = (...) = the end of the world :eek:

A...

iMeowbot
Sep 21, 2005, 04:34 AM
Oh, I think it will work out rather smoothly. Abode are targeting Q4 2006 for having Macintel releases available, and their core customers aren't known for being early hardware adopters. MS won't really have a decent answer to stuff like Colorsync until then (with Vista) anyway, so jumping operating systems isn't quite that simple.

thogs_cave
Sep 21, 2005, 12:00 PM
Uh, I think people at Adobe (between others) must be a little annoyed of the wind changing every other year at Apple's...

"Every other year?"

Let's see. The original Photoshop was developed on the Mac around 1988 (It began life as "ImagePro", and then was finally sold to Adobe (after BarneyScan used it as a bundle, which is where I first ran into it) and released in 1990.

So, Adobe has had it out for 15 years. In that time, the switch was made to PPC, then to OS X, now to Intel (using OS X). That's three major leaps in 15 years, and the last one is really trivial. It took Adobe far more time and effort to port to Wintel originally, and they now already have the SSE/SSE2/etc. optimzation code. So, I imagine the move to OS X (Intel) will be easy.

progx
Sep 21, 2005, 12:07 PM
the first shipment of intel macs will explode upon pressing the power button! lol. :D

i'm glad i got my powerbook, now i have get my hands on an imac g5 before they're gone! ;)

sjo
Sep 21, 2005, 02:58 PM
So, I imagine the move to OS X (Intel) will be easy.

Why are they saying it's not trivial? I'd imagine they'd really rather spend the development effort on some cool new functionalities.

BGil
Sep 21, 2005, 05:19 PM
No. It sounds like IBM is pissed that Apple basically told them to screw off and left them hanging. So what does IBM do? All of a sudden a G5 CPU that can handle being in a PowerBook arrives. $10 says that itís a bluff. IBM knows it will NEVER show up in a laptop and obviously no one else is clamoring for a G5 Mobile CPU so they won't have to worry about Dell showing up on their step to ask for this. So no worries about actually needing to prove it exists.
Itís a song and dance show to make Apple look like they were full of it. Seriously. If IBM had such a chip at that point Apple would have been shipping 3Ghz G5 PowerMacs at MWSF or WWDC instead of pushing out a transition plan.
As for Apple Expo. *shrugs* Maybe they were planning on doing the whole iPod thing and decided to release it earlier suddenly to find they have nothing else to present. What was Jobs expected to do? Do a little jig on stage? More Tiger demos? I don't blame them. They are suck between a product launch and a hard place.


But they are shipping millions of 3.2ghz triple core low power procs in Xbox 360's in about a two months so it's not out of the question that they could have dual core and low power 970's as well. In fact, it's quite probable.

thogs_cave
Sep 21, 2005, 09:57 PM
Why are they saying it's not trivial? I'd imagine they'd really rather spend the development effort on some cool new functionalities.

Trust me, it *is* trivial. They already have the code for OS X, and the SIMD instructions. It's not that hard to put together - the worst is testing, which needs to be done with new features as well. Ya gotta regression test....

Actually, I'd like a bit less "creeping featurism" and a bit more performance and stability. That's the problem with this industry (and I work in it), there is this constant drive to add more and more, often at the expense of quality and efficiency.

AidenShaw
Sep 22, 2005, 10:47 AM
Trust me, it *is* trivial.
Not if you're using CodeWarrior....

http://developer.apple.com/documentation/DeveloperTools/Conceptual/MovingProjectsToXcode/migration_overview/chapter_1_section_1.html

RobHague
Sep 22, 2005, 12:02 PM
Just noticed the 'rating' for this article on the main page.

77 Positives; 72 Negatives

I guess people are split 50/50 on this being a good or bad thing :confused:

SiliconAddict
Sep 22, 2005, 12:08 PM
Apple, please just DON'T use Intel's integrated graphics in shipping products. :mad:



They won't.

SiliconAddict
Sep 22, 2005, 12:13 PM
But they are shipping millions of 3.2ghz triple core low power procs in Xbox 360's in about a two months so it's not out of the question that they could have dual core and low power 970's as well. In fact, it's quite probable.

*pounds his head into the keyboard in frustration*

89h3e8934w2q43i8I!I*I*8IIKMUIK43I34IU,KEWR, ,. ,K K,I


God this has to be the most misunderstood "fact" ever to grace the Apple community. The chip in the XBOX is not a G5. Why do you think they can have multiple cores in the thing at such a high freq?

~Shard~
Sep 22, 2005, 12:34 PM
*pounds his head into the keyboard in frustration*

89h3e8934w2q43i8I!I*I*8IIKMUIK43I34IU,KEWR, ,. ,K K,I


God this has to be the most misunderstood "fact" ever to grace the Apple community. The chip in the XBOX is not a G5. Why do you think they can have multiple cores in the thing at such a high freq?

Thank you SiliconAddict, I didn't know where to begin with this one either. It's like the people who say that Apple should put the PS3's IBM CELL processor in a Mac "cuz it's sooo fast!!!" I can only hope BGil was being sarcastic, as usually he seems to be well informed and on the ball.

100plus1
Sep 22, 2005, 09:58 PM
cant wait, I hope prices are cheeper.

generik
Sep 24, 2005, 07:27 PM
cant wait, I hope prices are cheeper.

Apples? Cheap? That's unpossible!

mklos
Sep 24, 2005, 07:50 PM
*pounds his head into the keyboard in frustration*

89h3e8934w2q43i8I!I*I*8IIKMUIK43I34IU,KEWR, ,. ,K K,I


God this has to be the most misunderstood "fact" ever to grace the Apple community. The chip in the XBOX is not a G5. Why do you think they can have multiple cores in the thing at such a high freq?


I think everyone is mislead about articles previously written about Microsoft using a PPC970 "varient" and instead thinking that its an actual PPC970 G5 processor. The Cell processor does have lots of power, but not for personal computing. From what I've read the Cell Processor is really fast at doing one thing at a time, but is terrible for multi-tasking. People should know by now that faster isn't always better....

~Shard~
Sep 24, 2005, 08:36 PM
I think everyone is mislead about articles previously written about Microsoft using a PPC970 "varient" and instead thinking that its an actual PPC970 G5 processor. The Cell processor does have lots of power, but not for personal computing. From what I've read the Cell Processor is really fast at doing one thing at a time, but is terrible for multi-tasking. People should know by now that faster isn't always better....

Yes, this is correct - you would not want a CELL in a Mac, trust me. :cool:

Oh, and it's "variant"... yeah, I'm a picky bastard... ;)

RobHague
Sep 24, 2005, 09:02 PM
I wonder if Apple will keep the G5's in the PowerMac's for the foreseeable future.

Iím just thinking thatís all, they are 'workstations' correct. So their target market does not need low power consumption as a major feature - and their target market will have tons of PowerPC software they want running at its best. I also thought that PPC brought advantages to the kind of work that the PowerMac's were aimed at... and with Universal Binarys 'upcoming' software will work no less than current PPC titles sooo i dont see why Apple would be in a rush if they are trying to keep the campers happy. :)

I mean its not like its a race, they point in the direction of switching not because the PPC is 'slow' or 'bad' but because they needed the specific technology Intel were focusing on to make some products they want in future (Home Media Stations or something maybe?) and want to keep the form factor down. I read somewhere (think it was Macworld) in an Apple statement that they stated PPC was the ďmore elegantĒ architecture.

Anyhow it would be nice if they ran PPC and Intel Macís for as long as they could, who knows come 2 years or so I might have still bought a PPC if IBM had got their Dual Cores out and Apple were using them. ^_^ A Dual Dual Core PPC would have been quite yummy ;)

ammon
Sep 25, 2005, 04:38 PM
It will be interesting to see what the first Power Mac with an Intel processor is capable of. But it currently isn't looking too good.

~Shard~
Sep 25, 2005, 04:42 PM
It will be interesting to see what the first Power Mac with an Intel processor is capable of. But it currently isn't looking too good.

What specifically about the Conroe and Woodcrest chipsets do you have your doubts about? From what I've researched so far they seem like they will be quite impressive. Of course, being a year away, who knows what the end result will actually be. ;)

lopresmb
Sep 25, 2005, 04:43 PM
I tend to agree a next gen Pentium M type processor would probably scream...now if only all the software would be optimized for them.

ammon
Sep 25, 2005, 05:20 PM
What specifically about the Conroe and Woodcrest chipsets do you have your doubts about? From what I've researched so far they seem like they will be quite impressive. Of course, being a year away, who knows what the end result will actually be. ;)

I am going off of Intel's past track record. The only processor Intel did a good job on when released was the Pentium M. They talk big but typically fail to deliver.

The Itanium processor on paper was THE 64-bit processor. But in practice it was a flop. When the P4 first came out, the 1.6 GHz benchmarked lower then the Pentium III running at 1.0 GHz.

Instead of making the processor smarter, they add pipelines (to increase clock speed) and through on instructions like SSE, SSE2 and SSE3. Their floating-point unit has never been very efficient. Due to the depth of their pipes any kind of branch prediction has a large penalty.

I am just not a fan of Intel processors. If only we had the old Alpha chips back. Now those were some incredible chips! In fact, the AMD Athlon roots come from the Alpha chip...

~Shard~
Sep 25, 2005, 07:50 PM
I am going off of Intel's past track record. The only processor Intel did a good job on when released was the Pentium M. They talk big but typically fail to deliver.

Fair enough, I agree with you there. Perhaps I am simply giving Intel too much benefit of the doubt then... ;)

I am just not a fan of Intel processors. If only we had the old Alpha chips back. Now those were some incredible chips! In fact, the AMD Athlon roots come from the Alpha chip...

Ah yes, the Digital Alpha chips - I remember those! I remember when they released their first 1 GHz chip, back when Intel was sitting at about 300 MHz...

progx
Sep 25, 2005, 11:10 PM
since apple is done making their own hardware, i think this gives us Mac users a REAL choice on chip makers.

i have been contemplating a Voodoo laptop with an AMD 64 processor for my next machine. all that crap Apple has been spewing out, like Mac OS X won't work on non-Apple PCs (notice I called them Apple PCs, instead of Macs). Voodoo has gotten the x86 version of Mac OS X to work on one of their machines, running an AMD processor.

so Mac users who just plain do not like Intel, we're at a crossroad: buy non-Apptel hardware or take the dive with Intel's wonderful Pentiums.

~Shard~
Sep 25, 2005, 11:34 PM
since apple is done making their own hardware

:confused: They are? Please explain, exactly what hardware are you referring to that Apple once made, but no longer does now that they announced the switch to Intel?

(notice I called them Apple PCs, instead of Macs).

Um, okay, good for you. :rolleyes: I prefer to call them "Happy Magic Transistor Boxes". :p :cool:

beatle888
Sep 26, 2005, 02:58 AM
since apple is done making their own hardware, i think this gives us Mac users a REAL choice on chip makers.



what the heck are you talking about? or should i say, hello visitor from another world. welcome to earth.

you just lost all credibility with your post.

willyjsimmons
Sep 26, 2005, 11:47 AM
I am going off of Intel's past track record. The only processor Intel did a good job on when released was the Pentium M. They talk big but typically fail to deliver.

The Itanium processor on paper was THE 64-bit processor. But in practice it was a flop. When the P4 first came out, the 1.6 GHz benchmarked lower then the Pentium III running at 1.0 GHz.

Instead of making the processor smarter, they add pipelines (to increase clock speed) and through on instructions like SSE, SSE2 and SSE3. Their floating-point unit has never been very efficient. Due to the depth of their pipes any kind of branch prediction has a large penalty.

I am just not a fan of Intel processors. If only we had the old Alpha chips back. Now those were some incredible chips! In fact, the AMD Athlon roots come from the Alpha chip...

Luckily for you, the next gen chips are based off the M, and not the P4.

And as far as the Itanium, it failed largely due to its price point.

Clients aren't really eager to upgrade their servers, just because a new chip is available, especially if the CPU costs an arm and a leg.

Never mind the fact that there weren't a lot of 64bit apps on the market at the time, and there still aren't for many segments.

~Shard~
Sep 26, 2005, 12:02 PM
Luckily for you, the next gen chips are based off the M, and not the P4.

See, I thought this was the case too, but ammon indicated it was indeed the P4, which is what threw me. Can you or anyone confirm this for sure, as I had thought the new chips were not based on the P4 as well...

willyjsimmons
Sep 26, 2005, 12:57 PM
See, I thought this was the case too, but ammon indicated it was indeed the P4, which is what threw me. Can you or anyone confirm this for sure, as I had thought the new chips were not based on the P4 as well...

On the intel site, the press release states

'combines the strength of the company's current Intel NetBurstģ and Pentium Mģ micro-architectures and adds new features.'

The architecture is M based, but in the future may include HT(NetBurst) capabilities.

Intel is also trying to distance itself from the P4 'stigma', by changing their naming scheme to numerals. 8xx, 9xx etc.

~Shard~
Sep 26, 2005, 02:24 PM
On the intel site, the press release states

'combines the strength of the company's current Intel NetBurstģ and Pentium Mģ micro-architectures and adds new features.'

The architecture is M based, but in the future may include HT(NetBurst) capabilities.

Intel is also trying to distance itself from the P4 'stigma', by changing their naming scheme to numerals. 8xx, 9xx etc.

Gotcha, cool - thanks for the info. :cool:

drewyboy
Sep 26, 2005, 03:01 PM
since apple is done making their own hardware, i think this gives us Mac users a REAL choice on chip makers.

i have been contemplating a Voodoo laptop with an AMD 64 processor for my next machine. all that crap Apple has been spewing out, like Mac OS X won't work on non-Apple PCs (notice I called them Apple PCs, instead of Macs). Voodoo has gotten the x86 version of Mac OS X to work on one of their machines, running an AMD processor.

so Mac users who just plain do not like Intel, we're at a crossroad: buy non-Apptel hardware or take the dive with Intel's wonderful Pentiums.


You must be a real newb.

willyjsimmons
Sep 26, 2005, 03:06 PM
You must be a real newb.

Add to that, AMD is crap.

~Shard~
Sep 26, 2005, 03:13 PM
Add to that, AMD is crap.

I've seen you make this statement in another thread. As an honest question, (not trying to be confrontational), could you please elaborate on why you feel this way, and maybe back up your claims with facts/benchmarks/comparisons to help better prove your point? Just curious, that's all.

willyjsimmons
Sep 26, 2005, 04:00 PM
I've seen you make this statement in another thread. As an honest question, (not trying to be confrontational), could you please elaborate on why you feel this way, and maybe back up your claims with facts/benchmarks/comparisons to help better prove your point? Just curious, that's all.


Mainly I speak from personal experience.

Most AMD based systems I've come accross have died prematurely.

I know AMD has no direct control over the quality of motherboards that support their processors, or the 3rd party controllers on those boards, but my general impression that systems designed for the sake of being 'cheaper than an intel', tend to be pieces of crap.

Secondly, most fanboys who brag up AMDs performance compared to intel, tend to overclock their systems, which is an absolute 'no-no' in my mind.

If you want to compare benchmarks, then sure, AMDs new chips outperform Intel in certain tests, but those differences aren't going to be noticable by the end user (nancy the receptionist can't tell). Never mind the fact that a lot of the benchmarks posted on AMDs own site are against Xeons, which is almost a joke in my mind considering how old the Xeon arch actually is.

And in 4 months when intel releases the next gen chips, the power usage vs. performance advantage will shift back to intel.

Add to that, the fact that the high end AMD chips are actually almost as expensive as Intel, AMDs claim for being the 'cheapest' isn't holding much water anymore.

progx
Sep 26, 2005, 04:01 PM
ah, i'm glad i finally get noticed! haha!

a lot of that was bs, i am not too fond of Intel. i am hopeful of the future, so let's see what happens! :)

well, the fact that Voodoo got Mac OS X to work with an AMD was true, i think i saw the story on macrumors earlier this month or last month. but i did see the pictures of a Voodoo Envy (portable) with a 64-bit AMD running Mac OS X.

apple hasn't finished innovating on hardware or software yet, but we might not see all the great hardware we are so used to getting :(

basically, i'm saying: "PHYSIC!" :D

~Shard~
Sep 26, 2005, 04:41 PM
<snip>



Thanks for the elaboration, that's exactly what I was looking for. :) I, too, am looking forward to the new Intel chips, as I think they will help break Intel's "losing streak" and set them apart once again. ;)

progx
Sep 26, 2005, 06:22 PM
oh yes, apple will innovate without any question. i just hope i can still mac with an ati or nvidia rather than an intel graphic chip :confused:

what voodoo pc experimented, it shows that we might have options. like buying a copy of mac os x, then buying an alienware pc; of course taking windows completely off :)

it's worth a shot at some point :D

so, let's hope someone will test the theory out when these intel macs roll out and see if we can actually try this.

anyone for homemade macs? lol.

thogs_cave
Sep 26, 2005, 08:35 PM
Never mind the fact that there weren't a lot of 64bit apps on the market at the time, and there still aren't for many segments.

Arooo? Maybe not in the consumer market, but the workstation/server market is deeply 64-bit. SGI, Sun, and DEC ..er.. Compaq ..er.. HP (to name a few) have had 64-bit going on for a decade (give or take), and 64-bit apps are several generations old on those platforms.

BGil
Sep 27, 2005, 10:41 AM
[QUOTE=willyjsimmons]Mainly I speak from personal experience.

<snip>QUOTE]
I and 10's of millions of other people buy AMD systems every year. If there was some problem then we'd know about it just like how we know about iPod batteries, iBook logic problems, iPod nano problems, and iMac G5 overheating. There is no problem with AMD systems.

BGil
Sep 27, 2005, 10:41 AM
Intel has no direct controller over who makes chipsets for the processors either. SIS, VIA, ATI, Nvidia all make chipsets for both AMD and Intel. The only difference is Intel also makes their own chipsets.
If you don't want cheap parts then don't buy cheap parts. That's why places like Voodoo Pc allow you to choose your motherboard. Buy an ASUS, Abit, DFI, or MSI and stop complaining and spreading FUD.

You just don't like AMD because Apple is going to be using Intel.

And in 4 months when intel releases the next gen chips, the power usage vs. performance advantage will shift back to intel.

Go read the articles again, Intel's next-gen processors will still use more power than current AMD processors.

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=de&u=http://www.computerbase.de/news/hardware/prozessoren/intel/2005/august/idf_benchmarks_sossaman_yonah/&prev=/search%3Fq%3Didf%2Bbenchmarks%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D

BGil
Sep 27, 2005, 10:41 AM
That pic at the bottom shows two 50w (average or 75% capacity) dual core procs running at 1.5Ghz. AMD is selling 1.8ghz Dual cores at 55W absolute maximum, right now. Intel promises to have a dual core 65w proc for desktops and AMD already have 2 different A64 cores that run cooler than that. They also promis single core laptop chips under 15w average and AMD has the Turion MT which runs much cooler than that as well.

Then take into account that all those processors from AMD are 64-bit (20% performance boost) and much faster than the current Intels and future ones as well (the next-gen processors are actually a decrease in performance for Intel). Intel couldn't even beat AMD in 32 bit so once you load 64-bit on to that AMD processor it's no contest.

Thereís a reason why AMD told Anandtech they werenít going to release some :Ēnew thingĒ to combat Intel; because they released it already.

BGil
Sep 27, 2005, 10:50 AM
*pounds his head into the keyboard in frustration*

89h3e8934w2q43i8I!I*I*8IIKMUIK43I34IU,KEWR, ,. ,K K,I


God this has to be the most misunderstood "fact" ever to grace the Apple community. The chip in the XBOX is not a G5. Why do you think they can have multiple cores in the thing at such a high freq?
I didn't say it was a G5. It is pretty obvious that it's fairly closely related though. It's close enough that MS sent PowerMacs with modified video cards out as developer boxes and that they ported their DirectX stack to it knowing it would be an easy transition to the Xbox 360 processor.

Carmack said the Xbox 360 run unoptimized x86 code as half as fast as the fastest x86 procs. Nothing Apple sells for anywhere near the price can do that. I imagine it would take very little work on the part of IBM to produce a slightly lower clocked version of that proc that was more tuned for general performance computing. There's no reason IBM can produce great stuff for Nvidia, ATI, Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo while struggling to provide similar stuff to Apple. For goodness sakes, the Xbox 360 ships with a configuration not too dissimilar from the Mini (HD, RAM,DVD drive, Ethernet, Wifi) plus it has water-cooling, a kick-ass proc and a high end video card... and it's profitable at $400.
It should be obvious that IBM doesn't want to make processors for Apple.

AidenShaw
Sep 27, 2005, 10:30 PM
Then take into account that all those processors from AMD are 64-bit (20% performance boost) and much faster than the current Intels and future ones as well...
Surely you must know that even the current Intel Celerons are 64-bit...

That "20% boost" applies to all of Intel's chips as well....except for the Dothans that the Lord God Jobs is lusting after!

AidenShaw
Sep 27, 2005, 10:43 PM
I didn't say it was a G5. It is pretty obvious that it's fairly closely related though.
Anyone who understands what "ISA" means would realize that otherwise completely unrelated systems that shared the same ISA could be used more-or-less interchangeably.

P3, P4, P5, P6, K6, K7 and Netburst are pretty much unrelated, except for the fact that they all implement the x86 ISA.

BGil
Sep 27, 2005, 10:45 PM
Surely you must know that even the current Intel Celerons are 64-bit...

That "20% boost" applies to all of Intel's chips as well....except for the Dothans that the Lord God Jobs is lusting after!

Current chips are 64-bit but the next-gen chips (the subject of the thread) are not. The chips I was comparing to AMD's current lineup are not.

AidenShaw
Sep 28, 2005, 09:16 AM
Current chips are 64-bit but the next-gen chips (the subject of the thread) are not. The chips I was comparing to AMD's current lineup are not.
Except for the Dothan, current Intel chips are 64-bit - and except for the Yonah, next-gen Intel chips are 64-bit.

Your 20% performance boost, however, isn't realistic. You have to be running a 64-bit operating system, and be running 64-bit applications.

The 64-bit O/S is there for Windows, but none of the common applications are 64-bit - so you won't get the 20% in real life.

Apple is 32-bit only for OSX86 - so it's not possible to get the 20% at all!

EvilMole
Sep 28, 2005, 11:39 AM
as I think they will help break Intel's "losing streak" and set them apart once again. ;)

Hmmm yeah. 81.7% of the market, compared to AMD's 16.9%. $7.5 billion profit in 2004, compared to AMD's $91 milllion.

Some losing streak ;)

~Shard~
Sep 28, 2005, 09:39 PM
Hmmm yeah. 81.7% of the market, compared to AMD's 16.9%. $7.5 billion profit in 2004, compared to AMD's $91 milllion.

Some losing streak ;)

I meant from a technology standpoint wrt to the P4. :cool:

BGil
Sep 28, 2005, 09:55 PM
Except for the Dothan, current Intel chips are 64-bit - and except for the Yonah, next-gen Intel chips are 64-bit.


So far all 64-bit chips from now and until after the Yonah is replaced by the Merom are Netburst chips. In other word's think Prescott and hotter. So you're looking at the second half of 2006 at least, before energy effcient 64-bit chips come out of Intel. As everyone here is so sold that Apple isn't going to use anything based on Netburst (I think they will) then that means 3rd or 4th quarter 2006.

Your 20% performance boost, however, isn't realistic. You have to be running a 64-bit operating system, and be running 64-bit applications.

The 64-bit O/S is there for Windows, but none of the common applications are 64-bit - so you won't get the 20% in real life.

That's not true. I'm sure you've seen the After Effects scores from digitalvideoediting.com and other places, right? Most applications that use globs of memory like AE and Photoshop see improvements even in 32-bit on 64-bit Windows.

AidenShaw
Sep 29, 2005, 08:13 AM
So far all 64-bit chips from now and until after the Yonah is replaced by the Merom are Netburst chips. In other word's think Prescott and hotter. So you're looking at the second half of 2006 at least, before energy effcient 64-bit chips come out of Intel. As everyone here is so sold that Apple isn't going to use anything based on Netburst (I think they will) then that means 3rd or 4th quarter 2006.
IMO, Apple will do a Netburst-based system (other than the one they already have) in order to have a multi-CPU system for developers. It won't be their mainstream, and it will be sold in parallel with PPC Macs.


That's not true. I'm sure you've seen the After Effects scores from digitalvideoediting.com and other places, right? Most applications that use globs of memory like AE and Photoshop see improvements even in 32-bit on 64-bit Windows.
Interesting - the charts at
http://www.creativemac.com/articles/viewarticle.jsp?id=32951-1 do clearly show an advantage to running 32-bit apps on 64-bit windows. Nice to see that quad CPU Windows desktops are out on the market, too.

64-bit XP is actually based off Windows 2003 - so inside it's quite a change from 32-bit XP. In particular, it has better scheduling support for HT and for the NUMA memory on the Opteron.

However, the dual-core Pentium has similar speedups from 64-bit, so it looks like either memory management improvements in XP64/2k3 are responsible, or perhaps that significant amounts of processing are occurring in system libraries that are 64-bit.

Of course, it's merely an academic issue, since OSX86 is 32-bit only for the announced future. In my mind, that's the really puzzling question - why didn't Apple wait for Merom so that they could do a pure 64-bit only OSX86. Why put the developers through both an Intel 32-bit port and then later require another port to 64-bit x64? Why, Steve?

(Also, why port to Dothan rather than Yonah, since everyone expects Yonah to be here long before any MacIntels....)

Very interesting info about 64-bit XP, thanks for the tip.

BGil
Sep 29, 2005, 08:17 AM
64-bit XP is actually based off Windows 2003 - so inside it's quite a change from 32-bit XP. In particular, it has better scheduling support for HT and for the NUMA memory on the Opteron.

Yep. XP SP2 has NUMA support as well but it sucks from what I can tell. I can't find a single real-world benchmark where it actually improves anything. I'm so glad Vista is built on Win2k3.

AidenShaw
Sep 29, 2005, 08:33 AM
Yep. XP SP2 has NUMA support as well but it sucks from what I can tell. I can't find a single real-world benchmark where it actually improves anything. I'm so glad Vista is built on Win2k3.
Vista is built on the main Windows codebase - XP is a snapshot of that codebase from around 2002.

Development continued, and Windows 2003 is a later branch, and Vista is the current main path.

XP64 is a modification of the Win2k3 branch, not an update to the older XP branch. (XP SP2 does pull a few things from the later branches back to the older branch.)
______________

I thought of another possibility for the XP64 performance advantage - related to system code.

All 64-bit x64 systems have at least SSE2 support. It's possible that system libraries and APIs in XP64 are using SSE2 far more widely - since it's guaranteed to be there. XP might be using simpler instructions from the base set.

This could make a big difference in data moving tasks - like getting file data from the file system cache into the users' buffers.

It would also help floating point, since SSE2 is faster at scalar floating point than the standard x87 FPU.

widgetguy
Sep 29, 2005, 03:18 PM
G5 INTEL MAC here I come hehehe!

BGil
Sep 29, 2005, 03:42 PM
Vista is built on the main Windows codebase - XP is a snapshot of that codebase from around 2002.

Development continued, and Windows 2003 is a later branch, and Vista is the current main path.


That's not right. The Longhorn "reset" moved everything to Windows Server 2003 SP1 code just like XP64 bit.

The code base for Longhorn will be the same as Microsoft is using for the Service Pack 1 release of Windows Server 2003, an update slated for the first half of next year. Allchin said the decision to use that code base was made some months ago.
http://beta.news.com.com/Microsoft+revamps+its+plans+for+Longhorn/2100-1016_3-5327150.html?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Longhorn

http://channel9.msdn.com/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=119593#119593

AidenShaw
Sep 30, 2005, 01:30 AM
That's not right. The Longhorn "reset" moved everything to Windows Server 2003 SP1 code just like XP64 bit.
It can't be the same branch, or it would be the same system.

I think that if you read more carefully, you'll realize that the "reset" moved much code from the 2k3 SP1 branch to the mainline, and sidelined a lot of previous vista development work.

I think that my statements are still accurate - 2k3 is a branch, SP1 is on that branch, and vista is the mainline. 2k3 SP2 will be further out on the 2k3 branch than SP2 - but not on the mainline.

My description fits even if they completely pruned the old vista branch at the "reset" and started the vista mainline from SP1. The mainline is vista, 2k3 and SP1 would be older points on the mainline, further 2k3 development would branch from the SP1 point. (If this is the case, certainly a lot of code from the pruned longhorn branch would be pulled into the vista mainline.)

BGil
Sep 30, 2005, 10:38 AM
It can't be the same branch, or it would be the same system.

I think that if you read more carefully, you'll realize that the "reset" moved much code from the 2k3 SP1 branch to the mainline, and sidelined a lot of previous vista development work.

I think that my statements are still accurate - 2k3 is a branch, SP1 is on that branch, and vista is the mainline. 2k3 SP2 will be further out on the 2k3 branch than SP2 - but not on the mainline.

My description fits even if they completely pruned the old vista branch at the "reset" and started the vista mainline from SP1. The mainline is vista, 2k3 and SP1 would be older points on the mainline, further 2k3 development would branch from the SP1 point. (If this is the case, certainly a lot of code from the pruned longhorn branch would be pulled into the vista mainline.)

That's not at all what they are saying. Win2k3 SP1 is the main branch from here on out. The XP SP2 code is dead. Win2k3 doesn't have a SP2 it's got a second release called R2 but that it just some Vista/Longhorn compatible stuff and some interface enhancements being shipped with Win2k3. It's not a separate codebase at all.

Both Windows Vista, Windows XP Pro 64-bit, and Longhorn Server are based on Windows Server 2003 SP1 code. They didn't move win2k3 SP1 code to the main line, they ditched the XP SP2 mainline completely. That's part of the reason why it took so long to release XP 64-bit and why Vista Beta 1 is so much different than Longhorn Alpha.

AidenShaw
Sep 30, 2005, 11:02 AM
That's not at all what they are saying. Win2k3 SP1 is the main branch from here on out. The XP SP2 code is dead. Win2k3 doesn't have a SP2 it's got a second release called R2 but that it just some Vista/Longhorn compatible stuff and some interface enhancements being shipped with Win2k3. It's not a separate codebase at all.
Somehow I get the feeling that you've never used a modern codebase maintenance system that allows multiple branching, merging, and similar features necessary for large scale system development and maintenance.

How does MS issue a patch to XP SP2? They check out the *not*dead* XP SP2 version of the source files, fix them, and check them back into the XP SP2 branch. If needed, the code maintenance tools will help propogate the fix to other branches (maybe the same fix needs to be in w2k3 R2, and in the mainline Vista).

How do they patch 2k3 SP1 ? Same thing - check out the modules from the 2k3 SP1 branch, fix, and update. Maybe merge (to XP64, Vista,...).

They didn't move win2k3 SP1 code to the main line, they ditched the XP SP2 mainline completely.
When XP shipped, it became a branch. XP SP* are developments on the branch. XP SP2 is based on XP SP1, with obvious merges back to the mainline and other branches.

That's part of the reason why it took so long to release XP 64-bit and why Vista Beta 1 is so much different than Longhorn Alpha.
XP.64 had to wait for w2k3 SP1 - that has been widely reported.

Vista Beta 1 is different due to the "reset"...

Let's just disagree - because all we're arguing about is the semantics of what "mainline" and "branch" mean, not really any distinct change in the parentage of the code.

Note the following from http://www.softpanorama.org/Unixification/index.shtml:

"Then there are of course a lot of improvements on the device drivers, the way Windows handles drivers, wireless conectivity etc. The main code branch is built upon Windows Server 2003 SP1."