Intel iBook at MWSF (January) 2006?

[Daveway]

http://www.thinksecret.com/news/0511intelibook.html

Think Secret has posted a lengthy article with highly reliable sources.

<discuss>

[Lacero]

Great! Intel laptops coming faster than I expected. Knowing Thinksecret has a reliable track record, I'm giving them a 70% chance of being right. Could definitely Apple dropping another bomb. :D

[SummerBreeze]

Hmm, it could happen. I definitely expect iBooks to be the first to come with Intel. Although still, January seems a bit too early. I know that Tiger can run on Intel, but what about the other programs available? How is that gonna work, especially for switchers who will be needing to buy new versions of their favorite programs.

[Daveway]

Maybe its just me but doesn't it seem like the rumor sites are "covering all bases" like they did earlier this year?

[devilot]

A lot of talk about Apple needing to aggressively price their laptops. That would be nice if the switch to Intel lead to decent price slashes across all the product lines.

[Sutekidane]

Sounds good. <goes to start saving money>

[Lacero]

Faster than expected. I'm quite impressed by the speed at which Apple is able to design and port over to the x86 instruction set.

Like the article mentions, it makes sense for Apple's lowest performer to go intel, with Power Mac G5s slated for summer 2007 when hopefully all their pro apps like Final Cut Pro go universal binary by then.

[barneygumble]

Something is coming, good for apple. I can't wait, the goosebumps are already here
:D

[Josh396]

No one can make up their mind on what product is going to come first can they? Oh well, it's only a matter of time until we know.

GO REX.

[GroundLoop]

Wow! A 200 dollar price drop? Maybe this Intel thing will be worth it after all. ;)

But I still hope to hear something about an Intel PowerBook, even if it does not ship until March or April.

Hickman

[iMeowbot]

That's an interesting bit of wording, that "Intel-ready" business. Is this going to be like the wishy-washy upgrade cards they used in the '90s?

[NewbieNerd]

*puts fingers in ears* I don't want to know about any Intel iBooks after I just bought a PPC iBook. Nah, I'm perfectly happy with mine. I'm excited at the prospect of Mactels showing up asap because it means Rev B's and C's are that much closer too. :rolleyes:

[TrumanApple]

the first ones will be slow anyway because of emulation. I dont see a power user switching to intel for a while now soley because of software/performance issues.

[lolex]

I think quick launch of intel based Mac may due to the controversy OS arguement, Which I believe there's a possiblity of cross platform machine or something, and Apple want to preemt the sales from potential buyer :) and sees the feedback.

[munkle]

I trust ThinkSecret a lot more than other Apple rumour sites.

[Anawrahta]

*puts fingers in ears* I don't want to know about any Intel iBooks after I just bought a PPC iBook. Nah, I'm perfectly happy with mine. I'm excited at the prospect of Mactels showing up asap because it means Rev B's and C's are that much closer too. :rolleyes:


trust me when I say you ain't the only one thinkin along them there lines

[iEdd]

Powerbook, iMac, iBook and MacMini are all rumoured to come out in January. I dunno what to believe :rolleyes: I hope for powerbook though...

[texasmafia]

I'm hoping for an Intel iBook for a college graduation present so hopefully by next summer they will have a decent product ready. I really don't wanna buy from the first batch cause I know they will have issues.

[Ups85]

This will be perfect for the average user. Because most of the important functionality (internet, mail, ical, preview, etc) will be ported, the fact that there aren't that many third party software titles won't be a big deal. Besides, I'm sure a few apps such as office will debut along with the first intel macs.

[Wigletbill]

I'm a designer... need to know these things...

J

[Tristan_X]

I love the idea. Anything to get that rev b PB out before I graduate and lose my education discount is great in my books.

Still, we're adding the iBook to how many other Intel system rumors?

[bit density]

Of course it should be the Ibook. Ilife and Tiger already written for Intel. 200 bucks cheaper. This is going to be fantastic for those that the Ibook is most targeted.

This will be great for businesses that use the mac. This will let them test early on machines that only cost $799. For a lot of reasons this will enable many more businesses to examine the Intel solution, and move them more quickly into "inpower" systems.

Developers will have mobile test stations, which will make it easier to write and test code.

[kohei]

i just bought my iBook and so far i am not expecting the Mactel machine, i love my ibook 12!;)
i bought it because it is from Apple, don't want to see OSX installed in other cheap PC:mad:

[bit density]

I'm a designer... need to know these things...

J

Probably not. But you shouldn't need to worry all that much, I suspect that you would see a joint Adobe/Apple release party, and that all of the pro apps both Adobe and Apple apps will be "released" at essentially the same time as the "pro" machines.

[MacCoaster]

Faster than expected. I'm quite impressed by the speed at which Apple is able to design and port over to the x86 instruction set.
You shouldn't be surprised. x86 hardware has been engineered so many times over again and again that it isn't hard anymore to come up with generic x86 hardware.

Porting to x86 isn't difficult because Apple already has a huge base of software purely in objective-C which usually need a simple recompile or a few tweaks here and there. Their Unix core team has plenty of experience with x86 (Darwin already has an Intel version). Mac OS X was designed to be generally multiplatform compatible. NeXT has gone from 68k to x86 to PowerPC and now back to x86 with Mac OS X.

MacRumors quoted in some article that the new PowerBooks w/ Intel processors are supposedly 20% thinner than the G4 PowerBooks. Bring on the Intel Macs!

[QCassidy352]

I'm calling BS.

First, if the ibooks go intel first, they'll probably mop the floor with the powerbooks in pure speed. Would apple really allow that?

Second, I just think that intel at MWSF as a general proposition is not realistic. When has apple *ever* delivered an anticipated product so far ahead of schedule?

It's a nice thought, but I highly doubt this.

[JFreak]

I'm a designer... need to know these things...

If you are a professional, then you must know that it always takes longer for pro systems to make big paradigm shifts -- first they make consumer systems available for making "a real world test system" for pro system developers, and whenever the pro systems are ready, then they are released. That's how it has always been and I cannot see a reason why it would be different this time.

Take a look at OS9 vs. OSX transition, for example. There were some apps during the 10.0--10.1 period, and major apps begun to be optimised during 10.2, but it was only the 10.3 era when pro systems abandoned the classic. The reason it took so much longer than consumer systems is that if you're a pro, you need to have a 100% reliable and stable workhorse available at all times, and you most likely do not have the time to test new systems having the probability of many non-billable hours.

Hardware is different. Professionals always like to have enough horsepower, which usually means latest and greatest. You can order a bunch of new Quads in a heartbeat if you need them, but for us professionals this PPC-->X86 shift is not about hardware at all -- it's mostly software transition.

Anyway, I suggest you buy a Quad for your profession and then wait two or three years before buying a new Intel-based system. That's the safe way for a pro designer.

[JFreak]

IFirst, if the ibooks go intel first, they'll probably mop the floor with the powerbooks in pure speed. Would apple really allow that?

First of all, performance is not all about the cpu. Powerbooks have mighty good internals and the real world performance of a Powerbook that has similar cpu than ibook is anormously better than the ibook. There's a 25-30% performance hit for ibook due to internal design (compared to similar powerbook), and Rosetta puts in another 25-30% performance hit -- so there's just no way for this rumoured ibook to be faster than current Powerbook.

This rumoured ibook is meant to be a real world testbed for software developers ;) It's not going to show all its power until the software transition is finished.

[JFreak]

Porting to x86 isn't difficult because Apple already has a huge base of software purely in objective-C which usually need a simple recompile or a few tweaks here and there. Their Unix core team has plenty of experience with x86 (Darwin already has an Intel version). Mac OS X was designed to be generally multiplatform compatible. NeXT has gone from 68k to x86 to PowerPC and now back to x86 with Mac OS X.

Yes, for Apple that is. There are however so many bigger and smaller software developers that also need to get their porting done and optimised, and that WILL take time. Consumers might get instant gratification, but us professionals are more demanding and prefer the porting and optimising done perfectly rather than as fast as possible.

[toneloco2881]

I'm calling BS.

First, if the ibooks go intel first, they'll probably mop the floor with the powerbooks in pure speed. Would apple really allow that?

Second, I just think that intel at MWSF as a general proposition is not realistic. When has apple *ever* delivered an anticipated product so far ahead of schedule?

It's a nice thought, but I highly doubt this.
I agree with your first point. If iBooks go intel at MWSF then powerbooks will go at the same time. A yonah in any variant would completely destroy the powerbook g4. The powerbook is not really a "pro" machine right now in any sense besides it's name.

As for your second point, when did Apple ever publicly state their timeframe for "delivering" intel macs? They just said anytime before WWDC 2006. I always assumed it would be sooner than later. In a sense, Apple has to force the issue to get the laggard developers on task. Intel powerbook sells will be crazy besides some people postulating about the lack of software. The speed hit taken for running in emulation, would probably be countered by the extreme difference in performance, comparative to today's g4. The "dual core" yonah is going to be a BEAST!

[generik]

So apple insider claims Intel PBs, Thinksecret claims Intel iBooks... which will it be?

Either case it is really time to sell my PB :D

[Peace]

the first ones will be slow anyway because of emulation. I dont see a power user switching to intel for a while now soley because of software/performance issues.

Since this is an entry-level laptop the average consumer probably wouldn't even notice emulation ( if there is any ) due to the major apps like safari,the iLife suite and iTunes being universal binaries.They won't use Rosetta.

As for power users switching that won't happen until Powerbooks and Powermacs are introduced later..

If the price drops and it's got the typical Apple inovations the Intel iBook could be a big hit in the laptop market.

[generik]

Second, I just think that intel at MWSF as a general proposition is not realistic. When has apple *ever* delivered an anticipated product so far ahead of schedule?


Just to teach another MR member about the intricacies of english :)

Steve mentioned MacIntels will be in the market by June, not in June. What he meant to say is come June 2006, the world will already be filled with tens of thousands of new Mac users running Windows on their new computers :D

[iEdd]

I agree with the comments about PB being screwed if iBooks get another update before them. They barely win in speed as it is. 256MB of built in ram in a 12" PB... iBooks may go to 1GB built in. They might drop the 12" PB.
Whatever happens, I hope they do something with the graphics cards.

[generik]

First of all, performance is not all about the cpu. Powerbooks have mighty good internals and the real world performance of a Powerbook that has similar cpu than ibook is anormously better than the ibook. There's a 25-30% performance hit for ibook due to internal design (compared to similar powerbook), and Rosetta puts in another 25-30% performance hit -- so there's just no way for this rumoured ibook to be faster than current Powerbook.

What do you mean by "... due to internal design..."? Even if Apple puts in the current Pentium Ms into the iBook, at say 1.5Ghz (pretty much the slowest PM these days) it will be very compariable to the G4 1.67.

I own one of these, there is no pixie dust, no myth of the mhz myth, no nothing.. that 166mhz bus and 25W power consumption is really not cutting it in this day and age.

I don't care if George Bush uses the same PB as me to command the entire US army and edit videos of his grandkids at the same time, it is seriously a legacy processor that is starting to show its age...

How so can Apple slow down the iBook due to internal design changes?

Disregarding anything that is not natively compiled, for the most part at least the OS will be quicker, Safari will be quicker, mail will be quicker, iApplications will be quicker, Java applications will run quicker.

I don't mind a 30% penalty on a processor that is already probably as fast if not faster for the odd app that is not natively compiled for Intel.

Short of Apple deliberately crippling the CPU on those iBooks, it is seriously going to give the current PBs a good wooping.

I really urge anyone who is having second thoughts about your recent purchase to dump it on eBay asap, the bottom is going to crash out of PPC pricing.

[maverick808]

I have to agree with QCassidy352 and toneloco2881 in that I just can't see Intel iBooks before PowerBooks. As they said, an Intel iBook would make a mockery of a PPC PowerBook as it would be significantly faster. Even with a 30% hit in emulated apps they would likely still be faster than the current PowerBook so every app would be a bit faster and native apps would be much faster.

Furthermore, currently the iBook isn't great but it's still a decent machine that is certainly capable of fulfilling the average consumers needs. The PowerBook, on the other hand, is an awful performer for a supposedly high-end laptop.

I think the following would keep the PowerBook in front of the iBook and are all more likely than Apple making the iBook better than their high-end model...

1) Move PowerBooks to Intel now and keep iBooks as they are.
2) Move PowerBooks to Intel and make the iBooks 1.67 or 1.5GHz PPC until they switch too.
3) Move both PowerBooks and iBooks to Intel.

With all these rumours about 4 different Intel moves now it is possible that we could get most of Apple's lineup moving to Intel in Jan. Completely unlikely and I don't believe it will happen but... if it did then it would be the best MWSF ever.

[generik]

The Yonah is available in dual core and single core variants, could Apple use the dual for the PB and use the single for the iB?

[JoeG4]

Lower prices? How do they plan to do that without sacrificing quality?

Oh I get it now..

INTRODUCING THE ALL NEW 1.8GHz Apple iBook!

Powered by the blistering fast Intel® Celeron-M™ processor with Intel Extreme Integrated Graphics!!!

It's gonna stink like rat poo... But that's Apple now, not Apple a year ago -- the "We don't think video matters", firewire-pushing, RIAA-fingering company has turned into a "budget solution" company that "believes in variable pricing for songs" and "sees a place for video in the market"...

It's like the borg has taken over.

[BRLawyer]

Maybe its just me but doesn't it seem like the rumor sites are "covering all bases" like they did earlier this year?

Actually they have no clue, as usual...one says "iBooks", another says "PBs"...currently they are as reliable as MOSR or LoopRumors...

[generik]

INTRODUCING THE ALL NEW 1.8GHz Apple iBook!


Don't beat on the Centrino-M, it is surprisingly quick for its money actually.. and that's partly why Intel discontinued it. It was really cannibalising their PM sales.

[QCassidy352]

Just to teach another MR member about the intricacies of english :)

Steve mentioned MacIntels will be in the market by June, not in June. What he meant to say is come June 2006, the world will already be filled with tens of thousands of new Mac users running Windows on their new computers :D

:rolleyes: I guess you're unfamiliar with the intricacies of Apple. When they say "by" a certain date, what that means is that maybe, maybe they'll announce the product on that date and have it ship a month later. More likely what it means is, "We're working on it. There's no way in hell you'll see it by this date, but you can dream. Sucker."

I'm aware that a technical reading of what Steve said could have put the intel release anywhere from one moment after he finished speaking through WWDC 2006. But the intricacies of the english language mean nothing here; you have to talk in apple-speak.

"We'll hit 3 Ghz by next summer," Steve Jobs, WWDC 2004.

First of all, performance is not all about the cpu. Powerbooks have mighty good internals and the real world performance of a Powerbook that has similar cpu than ibook is anormously better than the ibook. There's a 25-30% performance hit for ibook due to internal design (compared to similar powerbook), and Rosetta puts in another 25-30% performance hit -- so there's just no way for this rumoured ibook to be faster than current Powerbook.

Of course it's not all the CPU, but what exactly are you referring to? The GPU? RPM of the hard drive? RAM speed? "Internals" can mean anything. Don't kid yourself - the CPU makes a huge difference, and the pentium M crushes the G4.

Hey, don't get me wrong, I'd like to see this too, but it ain't happening. You heard it here first.

[generik]

If you'd allow me to make a prediction...

Freescale 7448 PBs next Tuesday! :D

[Staffroomer]

If this is true I'm going to be particularly happy with my wife who hasn't let me buy my iBook yet this year.. :)

[Lacero]

You shouldn't be surprised. x86 hardware has been engineered so many times over again and again that it isn't hard anymore to come up with generic x86 hardware.
Yeah. This time, Steve Jobs under-promised and over-delivered on the date, unlike his famous 3 Ghz promise.

http://forums.macrumors.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=23106&d=1114554099

[the.snitch]

Yeah. This time, Steve Jobs under-promised and over-delivered on the date, unlike his famous 3 Ghz promise.

http://forums.macrumors.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=23106&d=1114554099

Is it just me, or does that look like "12 years" not "12 months"? Is this a deliberate parody, or an F-up?

[generik]

Yeah. This time, Steve Jobs under-promised and over-delivered on the date, unlike his famous 3 Ghz promise.

http://forums.macrumors.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=23106&d=1114554099

That picture is absolutely hilarious! :D

[mdavey]

MWSF announcements - my predictions

Intel Mac mini solo 1.6GHz - from $399 - shipping today
Intel Home Theater solo 1.6GHz CPU + HT GPU - from $599 - shipping today

12" Intel iBook solo 1.6GHz - $499 - shipping within 12 weeks
13" Widescreen Intel iBook solo 1.8GHz - $699 - shipping within 12 weeks
14" Intel iBook solo 1.8GHz - $999 - shipping within 12 weeks
15" widescreen Intel PowerBook dual 1.8GHz - shipping within 12 weeks
17" widescreen Intel PowerBook dual 1.8GHz - shipping within 12 weeks
17" widescreen Intel PowerBook dual 2.1GHz - shipping within 12 weeks

[johnnyjibbs]

Great, this makes my girlfriend's new Christmas laptop decision more complicated. I'm trying to persuade her to go Mac (i.e. iBook) but now it may be worth waiting in case of this update. She needs it then though so I can only hope it will come out by Macword SF '06.

Here's hoping.

BTW, I'm sure Apple will find a way to cripple the new iBook so that it won't be faster than the current PowerBooks ;) Or maybe we'll see little 12" Al also bumping ahead of it's bigger brothers for once in its life in addition to iBooks?! (After all, who would get the 12" PB if the iBook was faster and better?)

[animefan_1]

Wow! A 200 dollar price drop? Maybe this Intel thing will be worth it after all. ;)

They also said the iPod mini was supposed to cost ~$99. (http://www.thinksecret.com/news/mwsf04apple.html)

We all know how right they were with regards to that. :rolleyes:

[nagromme]

I don't see Intel PowerBooks being far--if at all--behind iBooks.

A next-generation Yonah (single core) iBook is almost certain to outrun a PowerBook G4 in many (not all) key respects. The PB has to change too.

And Apple does NOT have to wait on the PowerBook--PowerBooks have a more mainstream/consumer market that PowerMacs have, and would sell well even while we await key apps like Photoshop (which will run in the mean time, just at a penalty).

What Apple could do is keep a G4 model or two on hand for pros that need a non-Intel app now. Keeping G4s for those folks doesn't mean Apple can't offer Intel models to everyone else.

I'm thinking of how Apple kept the G4 towers around--but little-publicized--even after the G5 towers were out. And of how Apple kept OS 9-bootable towers available even after the newest towers were OS X-only. And of how Apple kept selling iMac G3s LONG after the iMac G4 came out.

It's practically a habit with them--and would solve a lot of dilemmas next year.

PS, Intel Macs earlier than June is NOT moving anything sooner. Apple never promised to wait for June. They said Intel Macs would be out BY June at the latest. And they said that so far in advance even THEY probably didn't have each month mapped out in stone. Intel Macs in January would be on the early side, but doesn't represent any change in what Apple said in the beginning.

[lolex]

Yeah. This time, Steve Jobs under-promised and over-delivered on the date, unlike his famous 3 Ghz promise.

http://forums.macrumors.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=23106&d=1114554099

http://geocities.com/nobodysir/steve1.gifWhere did you get that ?:D

[GroundLoop]

They also said the iPod mini was supposed to cost ~$99. (http://www.thinksecret.com/news/mwsf04apple.html)

We all know how right they were with regards to that. :rolleyes:

I was being facetious. I don't think that prices will drop that much. I think Apple will opt to add more features and keep the prices about the same. But there might be a new bare-bones iBook coming to help Apple eat into Dell's market share. Honestly, I don't care because I want a top of the line 17" Intel PowerBook.

Hickman

[animefan_1]

Lower prices? How do they plan to do that without sacrificing quality?

Oh I get it now..

INTRODUCING THE ALL NEW 1.8GHz Apple iBook!

Powered by the blistering fast Intel® Celeron-M™ processor with Intel Extreme Integrated Graphics!!!

Personally, I doubt Apple is going to do that. I think they may use the current Dothans for the iBook and use the latest and greatest for PowerBooks. This allows Apple to NOT use a crappy chip in their iBooks and also allows them to use something cheaper.

As far as graphics are concerned, I think Apple will continue to do what they are doing in this regard.

It's gonna stink like rat poo... But that's Apple now, not Apple a year ago -- the "We don't think video matters", firewire-pushing,I don't think Apple taking FireWire out of the iPod means they're not going to push it anymore. Call me when they take it out of their computers (which they won't).

RIAA-fingering company has turned into a "budget solution" company that "believes in variable pricing for songs" Do you have proof of this statement besides the stupid EMI exec blathering about his wet dream.

What do you mean by 'budget solution'? Can you provide examples?

and "sees a place for video in the market"...
because...you know...Apple isn't allowed to change their mind and/or not tell anyone what they're working on (read: NOT giving competitors a clue for their plans).

It's like the borg has taken over.
This one's easy - no, that's just not true. If Steve Ballmer/Bill Gates took over Apple, then you'd have a point (and I'd have to get my pitchfork :D ).

[animefan_1]

But there might be a new bare-bones iBook coming to help Apple eat into Dell's market share. Honestly, I don't care because I want a top of the line 17" Intel PowerBook.

I doubt Apple will do a bare-bones system. They compare decently to Dell now, so if they can add a few features and lower the price a little, they'd have a winning combo.

[unage85]

The poor iBook looks really dodgy compared to the 12inch PowerBook. I remembered I spent the extra $1000AU just because the enclosure just wasn't sexy enough (not to mention plastic scratches like hell).

What's up with scratch prone Apple products anyways?? iBook... iPod!!!! :P

- Den

[Abstract]

I voted this story a negative. Any rumour that talks about a P-M going into the iBook first before the PowerBook gets a negative rating from me, seeing as how we KNOW which system is the most desperate for an upgrade.

What do you mean by "... due to internal design..."? Even if Apple puts in the current Pentium Ms into the iBook, at say 1.5Ghz (pretty much the slowest PM these days) it will be very compariable to the G4 1.67.

Really? I think a 1.5GHz PentiumM will be much much faster than a 1.67GHz G4 for OSX, Tiger, pretty much all Apple apps, and some of the pro apps. Its not like NONE of the pro apps will be ready.

[realityisterror]

Just read my signature... :o

You've got to admit, as nice as all these Intel at MWSF rumors would be, when was the last time Apple was ahead of schedule? Besides, from all we've heard from Steve, none of this is really logical...

Just my 2¢...

reality

[JRM PowerPod]

People of this great forum, there will be no G4 as of MWSF 2006

There will be new Mac mini's, New PowerBooks and New iBooks.

WHY?

-They can't only update the iBooks coz they will kill the PowerBook's
-If they update the PB's they may as well upate the iBooks because the intel chip will make it cheaper
-The same deal is with the mini's, they will probabbly have the same spec's as the iBooks. and Intel could infact make it even cheaper

Otherwise we will see nothing. WHICH I DOUBT

[oober_freak]

Lower prices? How do they plan to do that without sacrificing quality?

Oh I get it now..

INTRODUCING THE ALL NEW 1.8GHz Apple iBook!

Powered by the blistering fast Intel® Celeron-M™ processor with Intel Extreme Integrated Graphics!!!

It's gonna stink like rat poo... But that's Apple now, not Apple a year ago -- the "We don't think video matters", firewire-pushing, RIAA-fingering company has turned into a "budget solution" company that "believes in variable pricing for songs" and "sees a place for video in the market"...

It's like the borg has taken over.


You'd be surprised to know that the celeron M is essentially a Pentium M with lower l2 cache..

[Abstract]

INTRODUCING THE ALL NEW 1.8GHz Apple iBook!

Powered by the blistering fast Intel&#174; Celeron-M™ processor with Intel Extreme Integrated Graphics!!!

It's gonna stink like rat poo... But that's Apple now, not Apple a year ago -- the "We don't think video matters", firewire-pushing, RIAA-fingering company has turned into a "budget solution" company that "believes in variable pricing for songs" and "sees a place for video in the market"...


The Celeron-M is essentially just a Pentium M, except missing some cache RAM I believe. It wasn't that much slower than a Pentium M, either, so don't knock it.

Also, Intel Integrated graphics aren't as bad as you think. Sometimes it's better than those video cards we get in our portable Macs.

EDIT: Okay, beaten to it. Didn't mean to sound like a broken record.

[aegisdesign]

I'm calling BS.

First, if the ibooks go intel first, they'll probably mop the floor with the powerbooks in pure speed. Would apple really allow that?

I'd doubt they'd put anything other than a single core Pentium M in the iBook and I'd guess it'd be in the 1.4-1.7Ghz range, not 2Ghz+. It'd be slower than the G4 for some things, quicker in others. Couple it in with lack of Intel native applications and the G4 Powerbook will still be quite a bit quicker for Pro app use.

Where you may notice the speed difference though is in 3D graphics if the intel native graphics driver and OpenGL implementation are significantly faster than the PPC versions. This is the only area that I see my iMacG5 getting whupped by my 1.7Ghz PM laptop.

[zap2]

crap now im not sure if i should should get a iBook in dec or not!!!!

[aegisdesign]

-If they update the PB's they may as well upate the iBooks because the intel chip will make it cheaper

Do you know how much a G4 CPU costs?

Hint: it's not a lot.

[Mord]

please please please apple do not start selling ibooks with giant screens, i love the fact that i can get a 12" notebook cheaply with non integrated graphics that looks nice, gah, their is nothing i dislike more than a budget 15" notebook with a crummy 1024x768 screen, more and more young people are buying laptops and they like small, their are four people in my school that bring laptops into school, two have 12" powerbooks and me with my 12" ibook and some twat with a 17" brick, he hates it and rarely brings it in, the bigger is better mentality is dieing out.

[DCBass]

Yeah. This time, Steve Jobs under-promised and over-delivered on the date, unlike his famous 3 Ghz promise.

http://forums.macrumors.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=23106&d=1114554099

Exactly. Given the embarrassment Apple and Steve suffered on account of this, I would expect nothing less than an announcement at MWSF, making it seem like they are really on top of things.

Which, hopefully they are.

I'm sure Steve wouldn't be caught making a huge announcement that Apple could not already exceed in spades (with 110% certainty). Many more of those, and the stevenotes lose their allure and the more the rdf recedes.

[aegisdesign]

I doubt Apple will do a bare-bones system. They compare decently to Dell now, so if they can add a few features and lower the price a little, they'd have a winning combo.

I'm sat here with a Dell brochure for a crappy CeleronD mini-tower, keyboard and mouse for £149+VAT on my desk. 2.53Ghz, 512MB RAM and 80GB hard disk. Probably just fine for an office computer. Bring your own screen.

The closest Apple gets is the Mini at £306+VAT. No keyboard, mouse or screen. Nicer software but is that really worth £150 more? (I'd say yes but most people wouldn't)

If you just want cheap, Apple doesn't do it.

[DCBass]

It seems to me that there are two possibilities if we assume intel ibooks at mwsf at a discount of $200 or so:

1. Given the price drop, and no powerbooks announced at the same time, these machines won't be any speed demons, at least not relative to the current pb. I don't believe that Apple won't murder one of their, albeit somewhat outdated, products, even for a second.

2. The intel iBooks can be much faster than they are now, but only if faster intel Powerbooks are at least announced at the same event. I might be inclined to give them a spare week to make a second announcement for the pb's (like they've done in the past), but I don't think Apple would let all of the 1st Intel Comp press be focused on the measly iBook when intel pbs would only be a week away.

[mdavey]

It seems to me that there are two possibilities if we assume intel ibooks at mwsf at a discount of $200 or so

There are at least two more possibilities:

3. Apple announces both the replacement iBook and the replacement PowerBook ranges as I and others have previously suggested. Remember there is a difference between announcing and shipping. Apple has a habbit of announcing many products at once, but giving them different shipping dates.

I'd expect the replacement Mac mini to ship the day it is announced, but for Steve Jobs to announce at MWSF that the laptop ranges will ship a few weeks after MWSF.

4. Just as the iMac is a completely different form-factor to the PowerMac, perhaps the designers have switched the iBook range to the tablet form factor, perhaps with an optional laptop-size bluetooth keyboard.

That would help differentiate the two lines (iBook and PowerBook) from each other and also from the existing G4 products which as others have pointed out, Apple may choose to keep available for a few months.

[dr_lha]

Like others I think a move of the low end first makes a lot of sense. People run only bundled software and Office on those machines, so the hit from major packages not being ported to x86 will be minimal.

One question is though, what about Office? Microsoft has been quiet AFAIK on x86 porting of Office. I personally can see three scenarios, that I list here in what I think is increasing order of likelihood:

1. No Office port to x86 at release of Intel based Macs. Rosetta all the way - not too bad because Office doesn't really require too much CPU heft to get it working fine.

2. Office 2004 ported to x86, Universal Binary upgrade on MS web site for download.

3. NEW! Office 2006 with x86 support! Microsoft don't miss out an opportunity to make money by getting people to upgrade.

I only pick option 3 as the most likely scenerio because I currently have a copy of Office Student and Teacher Edition with one unused license key that I am hoping to use on an Intel Mac in the future! Would be a totally Microsoft thing to do to make me have to go out and buy another copy of Office!

[DCBass]

There are at least two more possibilities:

3. Apple announces both the replacement iBook and the replacement PowerBook ranges as I and others have previously suggested. Remember there is a difference between announcing and shipping. Apple has a habbit of announcing many products at once, but giving them different shipping dates.

I'd expect the replacement Mac mini to ship the day it is announced, but for Steve Jobs to announce at MWSF that the laptop ranges will ship a few weeks after MWSF.

4. Just as the iMac is a completely different form-factor to the PowerMac, perhaps the designers have switched the iBook range to the tablet form factor, perhaps with an optional laptop-size bluetooth keyboard.

That would help differentiate the two lines (iBook and PowerBook) from each other and also from the existing G4 products which as others have pointed out, Apple may choose to keep available for a few months.


Just to be sure, I believe I did mention in my 2nd point that ibooks and pbs could be announced at the same event.

Agreed on the shipping and announcing distinction. I guess I didn't make that clear in my previous post.

In any case. I do like your ideas. Tablet iBook anyone? Mark me down for one.

[generik]

With Intel so close now, the good question really is... would you switch to a rev A MacIntel?

I would.

[Photorun]

What? A thread on macrumors and not one arsehat chimes in with "Powerbook G5! I know it!!!" I simply can't believe it.

Speaking of things you shouldn't believe, those who bought into the (or frankly ANY) rumor from AppleInsider, a site that hasn't been relevant since the Carter Administration... people, AppleInsider hasn't been right in the 21st century yet... c'mon, wake up.

Finally it occurs to me that, though ThinkSecret's word was close to golden, an impressive close to 90% or better rumor to reality rate, the times they are a changin' what with Apple suing them. What's to say Apple somehow didn't plant this info to try to 1. just fool the heck out of TS or 2. catch someone?

[Lacero]

What? A thread on macrumors and not one arsehat chimes in with "Powerbook G5! I know it!!!" I simply can't believe it.
You'd be the first one, then. :p Congrats.

Finally it occurs to me that, though ThinkSecret's word was close to golden, an impressive close to 90% or better rumor to reality rate, the times they are a changin' what with Apple suing them. What's to say Apple somehow didn't plant this info to try to 1. just fool the heck out of TS or 2. catch someone?
Good point. Apple puts out some honey trying to catch some bees. Perfect plan. Only problem is, ThinkSecret is a rumor site and the tipster is anonymous. But a wrong rumor affects TS's credibility, however shot it might be.

[hyperpasta]

I was wishing for new Powerbooks. The Dual-core Yonah would let us have a Dual 2.0 17" Powerbook for $200 (!). Better to roll out something hugely impressive to build buzz rather than a single-core iBook... The performance gain would make up for Rosetta.

[mdavey]

Just to be sure, I believe I did mention in my 2nd point that ibooks and pbs could be announced at the same event.

Ah, yup, sorry - I read it as you thinking that PowerBooks would be announced after, but you though that scenario was unlikey - even only a week later. You've made some very good points throughout this thread and elsewhere at MR - very much enjoyed reading them - Thanks :D

[Stella]

I'm interested in what the performance of these Intel machines will be like, given the huge gains that can be made - notable FSB.

- will they be comparable to existing PPC machines
- will apple cripple the performance
- will Java will be more usable - current Java performance on PPC is pretty dire.

[wilburpan]

If the Intel iBook is really going to be announced at MWSF '06, it would be pretty easy to gauge what would be included by going to the *gack* Dell website.

Today, Dell has the Inspiron 2200 line as their baseline entry-level notebook. They have 14 or 15" XGA displays, Celeron M or Pentium M processors, 40-60 GB hard drives, and a choice of 24X CD burner/DVD Combo Drive or a 8x CD/DVD burner (DVD+/-RW).

Assuming that a new Intel iBook would be sporting a Pentium M, the Inspiron 2200 model that comes closest to the currently available iBook is listed as the "High-End" machine on their Inspiron 2200 webpage (http://www1.us.dell.com/content/products/features.aspx/cto_inspn2200?c=us&cs=19&l=en&s=dhs). This comes in at ~$1000 without an instant rebate, and has a 1.70 GHz Pentium M, 512 MB RAM, 60 GB hard drive, 24X CD Burner/DVD Combo Drive, built in wireless, and pretty minimal software.

I'm betting that the entry level Intel iBook will be pretty similar, with the exception of also having a Firewire port. I also think it will be similarly priced. But here's the kicker: Apple's profit on an Intel iBook will automatically be higher than Dell's profit on a similarly spec'ed notebook because Apple doesn't have to pay Microsoft a licensing fee for Windows.

This means Apple can offer laptops that are identical to any Windows based laptop and still have a higher profit margin. This means better quarterly financial reports, and better stock prices.

By the way, if you haven't tried to buy a Dell notebook recently (and why would you), their website is a big fat PITA.

[maverick808]

I'm interested in what the performance of these Intel machines will be like, given the huge gains that can be made - notable FSB.

- will they be comparable to existing PPC machines
- will apple cripple the performance
- will Java will be more usable - current Java performance on PPC is pretty dire.

1) Sure. You'll be able to compare them by saying "hey look at how much faster this Intel is compared to the old PPCs".

2) Nah, they can't since these chips will be used in Dells, HPs etc. Apple can't go out and say hey check out our 2GHz Intel... it's not as fast as a 2GHz Intel from Dell but it's prettier. That won't fly so they can't cripple them.

3) No, Java is rubbish on every machine in the world. It will continue to uphold that rubbishness on Apple-Intels.

[mdavey]

The Dual-core Yonah would let us have a Dual 2.0 17" Powerbook for $200 (!). Better to roll out something hugely impressive to build buzz rather than a single-core iBook...

I could see this happening only if Apple had some other way to differentiate the iBook range from the PowerBook range. Screen size and screen format doesn't cut it for me, so that leaves processor speeds, form-factor or something I haven't though of.

[dr_lha]

But here's the kicker: Apple's profit on an Intel iBook will automatically be higher than Dell's profit on a similarly spec'ed notebook because Apple doesn't have to pay Microsoft a licensing fee for Windows.

This means Apple can offer laptops that are identical to any Windows based laptop and still have a higher profit margin. This means better quarterly financial reports, and better stock prices.

Yeah, but Mac OS X doesn't exactly cost them "nothing", R&D costs for OS X will be high, and I'll bet that boxed sales of Tiger et al doesn't cover the cost of development, so they have to put part of the Mac hardware sales towards that. I'd be surprised if the necessary "cut" of the Mac profit that goes back to pay for OS X development isn't the same or more as what Dell pays for Windows ($50 a machine or something?).

[ksz]

Finally it occurs to me that, though ThinkSecret's word was close to golden, an impressive close to 90% or better rumor to reality rate, the times they are a changin' what with Apple suing them. What's to say Apple somehow didn't plant this info to try to 1. just fool the heck out of TS or 2. catch someone?
The entire line is going to Intel processors. The only question is when, on a per model basis. The only thing the rumor mill is going to guess is the timing, the rest is a certainty. Does it make sense for iBook, PowerBook, iMac, mini, or what-have-you to go first? Which one goes first will, I think, be highly dependent on the class of software that is native by release time. Just because Apple updated the iMac or PowerBook a few weeks ago does not necessarily rule them out from being Intellisized first. The Think Secret article mentions one important thing: If the iBook is first, the Intel version of the iBook will be one of several iBook models. Other iBook models might remain on PPC, allowing buyers to ease in to the Mactel world. Those who need PPC will still be able to buy PPC. An overlapping transition might make more sense than an all-or-nothing replacement of a model line.

But enough with the speculation. I will just wait for MWSF and see what Apple has to say.

[Stella]

Java is pretty good - it has an unfortunate legacy of being 'slow' which isn't the case any more. For most cases - running a Java app on windows - you can't immediately tell the difference between a native and Java App.

Hope iBooks get redesigned, the current ones look a little too girlie - change the colour to black.

There should be an option of a 100mb hard disc so you put a copy of windows on the other partition ( no, I'm not joking, it'll be very useful for some people ). Sometimes emulating windows just isn't fast enough ( on Intel ).

1) Sure. You'll be able to compare them by saying "hey look at how much faster this Intel is compared to the old PPCs".

2) Nah, they can't since these chips will be used in Dells, HPs etc. Apple can't go out and say hey check out our 2GHz Intel... it's not as fast as a 2GHz Intel from Dell but it's prettier. That won't fly so they can't cripple them.

3) No, Java is rubbish on every machine in the world. It will continue to uphold that rubbishness on Apple-Intels.

[NickFalk]

...pretty much all Apple apps, and some of the pro apps. Its not like NONE of the pro apps will be ready.
I think you're wrong. Adobe have already been quite vocal about the amount of work necessary to port their apps to Macintel and Apple probably won't release any of their high-end video offerings until NAB anyway. As most pro apps rely on altivec this would probably mean that the new iBooks will still run slower than the Powerbooks when it comes to pro apps...

My guess: iBooks/minis early next year. Powerbooks at the developer conference...

[hyperpasta]

I could see this happening only if Apple had some other way to differentiate the iBook range from the PowerBook range. Screen size and screen format doesn't cut it for me, so that leaves processor speeds, form-factor or something I haven't though of.

I thought about this to. The iBook would probably top out at Dual 1.5, with the Powerbook going to Dual 2.0 and maybe even beyond! The Powerbook could also come with a built-in iSight a la iMac.

[Lurch_Mojoff]

OK, a few thoughts of mine on this ThinkSecret report:

For starters I don't really care about TS' amazing track record of "knowing" what Apple are up to. For all I know they may just be extremely lucky in guessing all that. And even if they had insider info in the past, there is little evidence they are not making all this up - it's not that hard to come up with an educated guess like that - in hope they'll turn out to be right.

Anyway, iBooks to go x86 first sounds pretty reasonable. Consumer machines are the perfect testbed for new technologies (and new architectures actually). Consumers are not that demanding after all - as long as it is not terribly slow, unusable computer and it is cheap and shiny enough, they'll be quite happy. And, by the way, most of the non-pro software, consumer software, or however you wanna call it, will be released as universal binaries in no time flat after the announcement of the first x86 Macs shipping. Almost all of that software, be it Apple's own (iLife, iWork, etc.) or third party, is Cocoa based, and from what I've heard most Cocoa programs Just Compile™ as universal binaries. Besides, iBooks are in dire need of an update.

However, there are a couple of problems here. For one, as every other person in the thread pointed out, it is yet unknown how will Yonah (or whatever Intel chip Apple are going to use) compare to G4, but it is far more likely that Intel's stuff will be faster, a lot faster at that. This will definitely make G4 Powerbooks look bad, compared to much cheaper x86 iBooks. And there is the other problem - first batches of a new processor are usually pretty expensive, because of higher degree of rejected production (i.e. processors that are gonna' be scrapped because they don't fulfill the specs or don't work at all, due to impurities, manufacturing flaws, etc.) Tweaking out the production process may take a good few months. Until then what, Apple are going to lose money on every iBook they sell, especially with the rumored lower price points? I'm not sure.

If there are x86 Macs announced at MWSF'06, my take is, they will be both iBooks and Powerbooks or just Powerbooks. Powerbooks, despite being the pro-laptops of Apple, are rarely used as production machines (main or only production machines at least - almost never), so there wont be much problem there.

Well, January is not that far away so we'll see. I won't be the least surprised by x86 Macs debuting at MWSF, but I'm not holding my breath. After all, there are hell lot of tuesdays/wednesdays in the first six months of 2006, aren't there? :p

[Hattig]

Ugh, what's that thing at the end of the article about people liking 15" screens? Why is the 12" iBook and Powerbook so popular? Because of the smaller overall formfactor.

Anyway. Let's assume that the low-end iBook gets a $200 reduction.

$799 1.66GHz iBook
Single Core Yonah
Integrated Intel Graphics (yuk! But fairly common on Intel laptops)
12" Display, 1024x768

$999 1.66GHz iBook
Dual Core Yonah (at this speed they're only $30 more expensive)
Integrated Intel Graphics
12" Display, 1024x768

$1199 1.66GHz iBook
Dual Core Yonah
Integrated Intel Graphics
13" Widescreen Display, 1280x800

However one must remember the rumours about a 15" widescreen iBook earlier this year...

$1399 1.83GHz iBook
Dual Core Yonah
Integrated Intel Graphics
15" Widescreen Display, 1280x800 or 1440x900

The problem is that there are so many variables. How does the PowerBook get a look in? Quite possibly the PowerBook will get an update - either to the 7448 at 1.8GHz or even 2.0GHz to tide it over until the middle of the year, or it'll go Intel as well - at higher speeds.

$1599 2.0GHz PowerBook
Dual Core Yonah
ATI or nVidia Graphics
13.3" Widescreen, 1280x800 or 1440x900

$1999 2.16GHz PowerBook
Dual Core Yonah
High-end ATI or nVidia Graphics
15.4" Widescreen, 1440x900 or 1650x1050

$2499 2.16GHz PowerBook
17" Widescreen, 1650x1050

In all the above, assume the clock speeds could be a speed step in either direction as well.

[p0intblank]

I don't know who to believe anymore... :confused: I guess I will just have to wait and see.

[NickFalk]

After all, there are hell lot of tuesdays/wednesdays in the first six months of 2006, aren't there? :p
I just had a quick check and it's nine of them in January alone! :eek:

[lopresmb]

I trust ThinkSecret a lot more than other Apple rumour sites.
yeah thinksecret and Appleinsider seem to be some of the most consistent rumor sites. Other than that, when news starts being published and confirmed in the "big media circus" it also seems to be a bit more substantiates (cf. Intel switch).

[amateurmacfreak]

Great! Intel laptops coming faster than I expected. Knowing Thinksecret has a reliable track record, I'm giving them a 70% chance of being right. Could definitely Apple dropping another bomb. :D

i really was hoping and hoping and hoping that powerbooks would be the first w/ intel... if that happened, i'd probably go and spring for a 15"... but if ibook comes out first w/ intel... maybe i'll get a 14" ibook...
sry, this is unrelated sort of, but if you're ripping a dvd using an external dvd burner, does it generally take longer?? that's what i'm doing, and it's taking a very long, long time.... only 4.17fps!!!!!!

[generik]

3) No, Java is rubbish on every machine in the world. It will continue to uphold that rubbishness on Apple-Intels.

That is your own rubbish opinion. Java runs great on other platforms I tried.

[JFreak]

when was the last time Apple was ahead of schedule?

they seem to release new ipods faster than people can even rumor about them ;)

[Lurch_Mojoff]

I think you're wrong. Adobe have already been quite vocal about the amount of work necessary to port their apps to Macintel and Apple probably won't release any of their high-end video offerings until NAB anyway. As most pro apps rely on altivec this would probably mean that the new iBooks will still run slower than the Powerbooks when it comes to pro apps...

My guess: iBooks/minis early next year. Powerbooks at the developer conference...

Although this doesn't invalidate your point, Apple doesn't have to wait till next version of the pro-apps to release a universal binary install, it can very well be rerelease of the current version. Oh, and the Altivec reliance turned out to be much overrated. On the other hand, there are third (http://luxology.com/press/release/061005_Lux_MacIntel.aspx) party (http://www.wolfram.com/news/wwdc.html) pro-apps (http://unibin.blogspot.com/) that are about ready to hit the street.

[generik]

The problem is that there are so many variables. How does the PowerBook get a look in? Quite possibly the PowerBook will get an update - either to the 7448 at 1.8GHz or even 2.0GHz to tide it over until the middle of the year, or it'll go Intel as well - at higher speeds.


The PBs may get the Intel upgrade.. or maybe not.

Afterall Apple did take the trouble to up the current lines to the new Intrepid2 chipset and higher clocked DDR2 memory, but to what end? It is not like the current 1.67 chips are able to exploit these fully, if at all.

Personally I am still secretly rooting for one more PPC revision before the intel switch. Maybe then I wlll buy one of those final relics for keeps.. the last model in the line of an alternative CPU architecture :rolleyes:

[JFreak]

As most pro apps rely on altivec this would probably mean that the new iBooks will still run slower than the Powerbooks when it comes to pro apps...

Wrong. It means that you are not able to run pro apps via Rosetta, which only translates PPC to X86 and doesn't touch Altivec at all. That means that every single Altivec app MUST be run on a PPC hardware until Intel native version is released.

[NickFalk]

...Apple doesn't have to wait till next version of the pro-apps to release a universal binary install, it can very well be rerelease of the current version.
Yes, but I think it would just make sense for Apple not too. If they premiere the new version at NAB they can release it as the same time as the new Powerbooks at the DC.
...there are third (http://luxology.com/press/release/061005_Lux_MacIntel.aspx) party (http://www.wolfram.com/news/wwdc.html) pro-apps (http://unibin.blogspot.com/) that are about ready to hit the street.
OK, fair point. I'm mostly into video-stuff which in my case means Final Cut Studio + a bunch of Adobe apps.

[NickFalk]

Wrong. It means that you are not able to run pro apps via Rosetta, which only translates PPC to X86 and doesn't touch Altivec at all. That means that every single Altivec app MUST be run on a PPC hardware until Intel native version is released.
Not quite. I believe Photoshop uses Altived when present but can still run on G3 processors. Final Cut Studio would have to be recompiled I guess, and I believe this actually fits perfectly with my theory of a later Powerbook update...

[Wonder Boy]

With Intel so close now, the good question really is... would you switch to a rev A MacIntel?

I would.

not me. thats why i bought a 2.5 from macmall. i couldn't wait for a rev b.

[Diomedes]

When I read the rumor of the possibility of a PowerBook with the dual-core Yonah chip, I began to drool...until it hit me that the applications which make up 90-95% of my daily life — Office, Acrobat, Creative Suite — won't be native. Anything less than a "break-even" performance (meaning the apps running on Intel would have to perform at least as well as they do on PPC) will be unacceptable. (And I don't see Microsoft or Adobe rushing to get their apps Intel native...)

[revisionA]

I'd like to see the ULV Pentium M in an iBook.

Its slower ,1.2 right now, and would probably give it like 8 hours of battery life. It wouldnt intimidate the G4 Powerbook on the speed level, but battery life is the major focus in the portable world. Battery tech sucks.

And that alone is a college kids wet dream. To just take the laptop with you, use it all day, and recharge it when you get home...

If they dont mind imitating the Sony T series... wait, the integrated webcam was on the sony t's for a while... hmm.

OSX would make it into the perfect accessory. Offer four primary colors and watch the kiddies line up. Make it $899 for a ULV power iBook in red, black, light blue, pink or white. Drop PB's six months later running Merom dual cores, filling in the much wanted G5 powerbook hole with a 64 bit dual core starting at exactly twice the base price of the iBook.

Split the trackpad's clicker into two, please! Make the right click like 65% of the space and 35% for the left, less confusion for the K.I.S.S. crowd.

Integrate the camera, but also a slidedown cover for it. Physically blocking the camera will help motivate the paranoid, like myself, to buy it.

Do it!
$

[Gasu E.]

Yeah, but Mac OS X doesn't exactly cost them "nothing", R&D costs for OS X will be high, and I'll bet that boxed sales of Tiger et al doesn't cover the cost of development, so they have to put part of the Mac hardware sales towards that. I'd be surprised if the necessary "cut" of the Mac profit that goes back to pay for OS X development isn't the same or more as what Dell pays for Windows ($50 a machine or something?).


Quite right. Apple is both a hardware vendor and a software developer. The economics of a software business is totally different from a hardware business. Software has huge fixed costs and relatively small variable costs. Market share matters in software; margins don't.

[JFreak]

Not quite. I believe Photoshop uses Altived when present but can still run on G3 processors. Final Cut Studio would have to be recompiled I guess, and I believe this actually fits perfectly with my theory of a later Powerbook update...

Photoshop is Altivec-enhanced, but there are apps (namely in audio and video) that are Altivec-only, which won't run on G3 or Rosetta.

[maverick808]

Split the trackpad's clicker into two, please! Make the right click like 65% of the space and 35% for the left, less confusion for the K.I.S.S. crowd.

I don't like the idea of a split button. And an uneven split is worse... what about people who are left-handed? Keep the one button and make a trackpad tap a right-click.

[revisionA]

That would work too. Just something

[Lurch_Mojoff]

Yes, but I think it would just make sense for Apple not too. If they premiere the new version at NAB they can release it as the same time as the new Powerbooks at the DC.

Given that "new Powerbooks at the DC" is in Apple's product schedule, something we don't know. :)

OK, fair point. I'm mostly into video-stuff which in my case means Final Cut Studio + a bunch of Adobe apps.

As I said, video professionals like you should be "worried" about the Adobe products you're using. Most of Adobe's code is awkwardly portable, proprietary, messy, and Carbon. I don't doubt they'll need some time to make all that universal. And if the Intel processors in future Macs are not at least 30% faster than PPCs in current ones, so you can run, say, Photoshop under Rosetta without performance penalty, Apple will have hard time persuading professionals, or even prosumers, to switch to x86.

Actually, I'm not sure what impact will all this have on Apple's laptops. Probably this is not representative of anything, but most people I know don't use their Powerbooks as main/sole production machines. Quick fix on the go - yes, but for serious work - meh, there are G5 based computers for that.

BTW, out of curiosity, are you running FCP on a Powerbook. I wouldn't have the guts to do that. :p :o :p

[NickFalk]

Photoshop is Altivec-enhanced, but there are apps (namely in audio and video) that are Altivec-only, which won't run on G3 or Rosetta.
Yup, I did actually mention Final Cut Studio. My point is actually that the new Intel iBooks won't compete with the current Powerbooks because of this...

[Lurch_Mojoff]

Photoshop is Altivec-enhanced, but there are apps (namely in audio and video) that are Altivec-only, which won't run on G3 or Rosetta.

Which exactly are those audio/video apps again? :confused: :confused: :confused:

[NickFalk]

BTW, out of curiosity, are you running FCP on a Powerbook. I wouldn't have the guts to do that. :p :o :p
Nah, my editing-suite still consists of an old, but update QS running dual 1,6Ghz G4 at the moment. Working in SD works brilliantly but it might have to bite the bullet when HD becomes a necessity...

[Mord]

the only application that i cant run on my g3 that i have tried was this lego program.

[BRLawyer]

These rumors are pure BS. The dual-core Yonahs are NOT gonna be ready by January, and NEVER has an iBook been updated to another generation before the mighty PowerBooks.

Again, AI and TS have NO clue. Seriously, it's easier to see PB G5s than that...

[excalibur313]

When do you think the best time to sell my current powerbook would be to get the most? Now when it isn't much worse than a new one you can buy or after they come out with new ones because this will be more optimised (presumably) for ppc apps than newer generation powerbooks?

[jayscheuerle]

I gave this a negative because the iBooks and the Powerbooks are so close in power that one would expect the iBooks to have the weaker chip. If the iBooks are getting the new Intel chips, then that doesn't bode well for their overall strength..

[NickFalk]

These rumors are pure BS. The dual-core Yonahs are NOT gonna be ready by January, and NEVER has an iBook been updated to another generation before the mighty PowerBooks.
Well, things might change. I'm not quite sure what kind of intel-processors Apple have lined up, but it could be that we're talking a real differentiation between the Powerbooks and iBooks for the first time in a while.

As long as the iBooks won't able to run the most popular pro-apps faster than the current Powerbooks I believe this makes perfect sense.

[jayscheuerle]

200 bucks cheaper. This is going to be fantastic for those that the Ibook is most targeted.

I don't believe the price drop for a minute. I'm supposed to believe that the Intel chips are $200 cheaper apiece? Everything else is the basically the same.

The Apple premium is for design..

[jayscheuerle]

Probably not. But you shouldn't need to worry all that much, I suspect that you would see a joint Adobe/Apple release party, and that all of the pro apps both Adobe and Apple apps will be "released" at essentially the same time as the "pro" machines.

HA! Don't you remember how long it took Adobe to write native OSX versions of their programs? (Albeit not as long as Quark)

[Lurch_Mojoff]

Nah, my editing-suite still consists of an old, but update QS running dual 1,6Ghz G4 at the moment. Working in SD works brilliantly but it might have to bite the bullet when HD becomes a necessity...

Dual 1,6GHz G4 QS is still much better for video and/or image manipulation than single 1,67GHz Powerbook. ;)

[mrgreen4242]

Hrm, this is a great rumor! I love idle Apple speculation. OK, I'm guessing we will see all the laptops go Intel at MWSF, and the mini just a little bit later (they will roll it out with some kind of media/video capabilities, and have an event focused on that as well as the new mini). iBooks will ship immediately, PowerBooks will be available in 4-6 weeks.

Specs? I'm guessing/hoping for:

iBook 12" (maybe a 13" Widescreen?) $899
~1.6ghz P-M
512mb RAM standard, up to 2gbs (1 slot)
40gb HDD (60/80/100gb offerd and I'm really hoping they move to all 5400rpm drives)
Mobility 9550/9600, AGP, 64mb VRAM (I'm guessing no Intel integrated simply for Core Video reasons)
Combo drive (will they offer an SD upgrade finally?! Hope so!)
AE and BT Standard

iBook 14" (WS 15"?) $1299
~1.75ghz P-M
512mb RAM standard (up to 4gb with 2 slots)
60gb HDD (80/100 offered)
Rest the same as 12"

Powerbook 12" $1499-1599
Dual Core 1.5ghz Yonah
512mb Standard RAM (2 Slots - 4gb Max)
60gb HDD (80/100 offered)
ATI x600 64mb VRAM, PCIe
Combo/AE/BT2

Powerbook 15" $1999
Dual 1.8ghz
1gb RAM standard (up to 4)
80gb HDD (100+ offered)
x700 128mb VRAM PCIe
Combo/AE/BT2

Powerbook 17" $2499-2699
Dual 2-2.2ghz
1gb RAM
100gb HDD
x800 256mb
SD/AE/BT2

*Note, I used ATI card through the lines, but who knows what Apple will pick, so substitute an equivalent NVIDIA card if that's the flavor of the day when I Apple makes the contracts.

[NickFalk]

Dual 1,6GHz G4 QS is still much better for video and/or image manipulation than single 1,67GHz Powerbook. ;)
Yeah I have no complaints really. Heck, "Cold Mountain" was edited with lesser processors. :)

[angelwatt]

Maybe its just me but doesn't it seem like the rumor sites are "covering all bases" like they did earlier this year?

I was thinking the same thing when I read this. With all the rumors out there now one of them has to be right.

[SiliconAddict]

well crap. . . And the waiting for a new PowerBook continues. Damn it at this rate I'm going to be able to get two PowerBooks. . .I already have three and a half grand saved up. :(

[sishaw]

I don't like the idea of a split button. And an uneven split is worse... what about people who are left-handed? Keep the one button and make a trackpad tap a right-click.


As a lefty, three comments. One, the tap won't work because the trackpad on iBooks is extremely sensitive to taps and the predictable result will be all kinds of unintential secondary-button clicks.

Two, even though I have recently arrived in Apple land from the windows PC world, I find control-click quite adequate for my right-click needs (on a laptop), and of course, you can just use a two-button mouse on the Apple desktops.

Three, the best ergonomic solution for both right and left handers, IMHO, would be click-and-hold = right click, as it essentially is for the dock (i.e., click and hold pulls up the contextual menu).

[SiliconAddict]

Powerbook 17" $2499-2699
Dual 2-2.2ghz
1gb RAM
100gb HDD
x800 256mb
SD/AE/BT2

*Note, I used ATI card through the lines, but who knows what Apple will pick, so substitute an equivalent NVIDIA card if that's the flavor of the day when I Apple makes the contracts.

I would get down on my hands and knees and lick Steve Jobs's sneakers for that laptop. . .And I'm not kidding. :eek:

[Seasought]

the iBook line may see a price drop by as much as $200 in some cases.

I hope that doesn't mean that the specs will drop in turn as well (slower processor, low-end vid. card, etc.) I also hope they revamp their looks, but I think I'm in the minority of those who don't really care for the 'white plastic' look of the iBooks.

[Hattig]

These rumors are pure BS. The dual-core Yonahs are NOT gonna be ready by January, and NEVER has an iBook been updated to another generation before the mighty PowerBooks.

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=27770

January 1st.

Pick your iBook and Powerbook processor and speed examples from that page as well.

[rlwimi]

What a pathetic joke.

Gotta love the dimwitted clowns who are begging to get their hands on a piece of crap Pentium M laptop so they can run almost all of their apps emulated at SLOWER speeds than current G4 laptops - of course ignoring all of the apps that won't work at all.

Start saving for your 'dream' laptop losers!

[Lacero]

What a pathetic joke.

Gotta love the dimwitted clowns who are begging to get their hands on a piece of crap Pentium M laptop so they can run almost all of their apps emulated at SLOWER speeds than current G4 laptops - of course ignoring all of the apps that won't work at all.

Start saving for your 'dream' laptop losers!
What do you expect from a major change in platform? You can't even troll properly, you suck at it. I point my fingers and laugh at you.

[derbladerunner]

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=27770

January 1st.

Pick your iBook and Powerbook processor and speed examples from that page as well.

Another source also says 'early January 2006'. See here...

http://www.mikeshardware.co.uk/RoadmapQ106.htm#Jonah

iBook also got Airport first back in '99. The pro apps case mentioned by Thinksecret makes sense, I expect the iBook and Mini to move to Intel first.

I guess always Apple planned this:

- Announce June '06, but prepare for Jan / spring '06

- People will stop buying and waiting in spring '06 based on publicly available information (une '06)

- Announce change of plans on short notice in early '06 so there is no waiting gap based on people's perceptions / the waiting period is closed.

In addition, you get the additional excitement of a long-awited product now coming earlier.

Clever move.

[ccrandall77]

It would be very stupid of Apple to upgrade their consumer-level products while the Powerbook languishes with ancient G4s that have only seen modest speed gains in the past 2 years. The Powerbook line is one of their best selling product lines and the one most in need of the upgrade to Intel.

I suppose they could be thinking that they will wait until a particular processor is available, but that would also be stupid since they could always upgrade the processor anytime.

If the iBook was the first to make the transition, would they have to hold the speeds down so they don't eclipse the speeds of the Powerbooks? If so, what's the point? The speed of the current iBook lineup is only marginally slower than the Powerbook lineup.

I think either Thinksecret is blowing smoke up everyone's rear end or Apple is about to make a large blunder.

[cubist]

That's an interesting bit of wording, that "Intel-ready" business. Is this going to be like the wishy-washy upgrade cards they used in the '90s?

Yes, that caught my eye too. I had a "PowerPC Ready" PowerBook 520C. It was a 68040, of course. IIRC there was some way a CPU module would get installed, but I never saw or heard of one for it.

[achmafooma]

I don't like the idea of a split button. And an uneven split is worse... what about people who are left-handed? Keep the one button and make a trackpad tap a right-click.
This is easy ... use Mighty Mouse technology to make the 1-button on the trackpad behave like a reconfigurable multibutton.

I like the primary button on the left at 2/3, and the secondary button on the right at 1/3. You could switch them around, swap sides, make it 50/50 or 25/75 or even configure it to work like a 1-button.

We have the technology!

Now that the desktops are all shipping with the Mighty Mouse, it only makes sense to implement a similar multibutton technology on the notebooks. Two-finger scrolling covers half of what the Mighty Mouse offers, but why do we notebook users still have to do the ctrl-click maneuver for a right click!?

As for the Intel 'Books, bring 'em on :-). I just got a 15" PowerBook (high-res), but we have it all planned out... See, my wife has lots of expensive PPC-only creative software (Adobe CS2, etc.) that would cost a fortune to upgrade to Intel versions. So, I'll get to play semi-early-adopter and get a rev-B Intel PowerBook (I'm guessing about a year from now) and pass this PPC PB to my wife. That way she doesn't have to upgrade the more than $2,000 in software all at once.

Most of what I use is either going to be available free as a universal binary or gets used so rarely that Rosetta will be tolerable. People like my wife who spend most of their day in Photoshop will need to run native versions; it's not so important for my 'an hour here-and-there' kind of use.

I am a web developer, so I'm fired up about the prospect of having Windows and Linux running at near-full-speed in virtual machines on my Mac for site testing purposes. For me, that far outweighs the potential slowdown from Rosetta :-).

[Cue]

If the iBook was the first to make the transition, would they have to hold the speeds down so they don't eclipse the speeds of the Powerbooks? If so, what's the point? The speed of the current iBook lineup is only marginally slower than the Powerbook lineup.

that's exactly what troubles me!

[mzd]

So, to sum up, thus far, to date, every apple product has been rumored to be Intel based by Macworld with the exception of the Intel based iPod, correct? :)
Sorry, I exaggerate, I don't remember seeing a PowerMac in January rumor yet.
Think Secret is bound to be right on at least one of the rumors.

[Hunts121]

BTW, out of curiosity, are you running FCP on a Powerbook. I wouldn't have the guts to do that. :p :o :p


I run FCP HD on my powerbook (haven't moved up to 5 yet I probably won't til I get an Intel PB though by then it might be 5.5 or something haha) and its always ran fine for me. Rarely are the rendering time so awful that I want to chuck this thing. It beats waiting in line at the school mac labs for a G5. ;)

[kohei]

wait...beside the iBook and pb, would that be possible for apple to introduce a brand-new line of laptop?? :rolleyes:

[deputy_doofy]

Now, it may have already been mentioned somewhere in the last 6 pages, but there's always the possibility that the 12" Powerbook could see an upgrade to a Pentium-M along with the iBook.
I only say that because the 12" Powerbook received no update at all last time and, while it is considered a professional machine, it is the low end.
After all, someone who is doing massive Photoshop work on a laptop is more likely to do it on a 15" or 17", not a 12", so it would be a good place to test the waters.
Just my opinion...

[Stella]

that's exactly what troubles me!

Don't worry.

Steve will expand his RDF to new heights to get us all believing the reasons why is it good to have faster iBooks than PowerBooks.

:D

[Lepton]

January: iBook, Mac Mini. Single processor.
April: PowerBook. Dual Processor.
WWDC: The big gun. Mac desktop. 2 chips, dual core, hyper. 8 CPU threads.

[BRLawyer]

Now, it may have already been mentioned somewhere in the last 6 pages, but there's always the possibility that the 12" Powerbook could see an upgrade to a Pentium-M along with the iBook.
I only say that because the 12" Powerbook received no update at all last time and, while it is considered a professional machine, it is the low end.
After all, someone who is doing massive Photoshop work on a laptop is more likely to do it on a 15" or 17", not a 12", so it would be a good place to test the waters.
Just my opinion...

If Apple does such a dumb move I will not buy a new PB...P-Ms are dead meat already, considering the new Intel announcements...

[puckhead193]

the only thing that would stop me to believe that pro lines won't be the first because of the software. I suspect in the begining their will be all kinds of software issues and a professional would be screwed if FCP or photoshop doesn't work like it should.

[SiliconAddict]

What a pathetic joke.

Gotta love the dimwitted clowns who are begging to get their hands on a piece of crap Pentium M laptop so they can run almost all of their apps emulated at SLOWER speeds than current G4 laptops - of course ignoring all of the apps that won't work at all.

Start saving for your 'dream' laptop losers!

Ahh trolls. There's nothing like a steaming cup of stupidity in the morning to get yah going. :eek:

[RobHague]

How about if in January they release Intel-based iBooks and upgrade the Powerbooks with the 7448's by Freescale? :D

Could work ;) but at the moment i dont trust any of the rumors. Though this one does seem more pluasable than the rest.

[Yebot]

I'm calling BS.

First, if the ibooks go intel first, they'll probably mop the floor with the powerbooks in pure speed. Would apple really allow that?

Second, I just think that intel at MWSF as a general proposition is not realistic. When has apple *ever* delivered an anticipated product so far ahead of schedule?

It's a nice thought, but I highly doubt this.

First,

iBooks are rarely in competition with Powerbooks. If you want to run pro-apps then Powerbook will still be the best machine come January because those apps will still be optimized for PowerPC. If you want to run consumer apps (iLife) then the new iBook will be the best machine since those apps will be optimized for both PPC and Intel.

Second,

Say it with me, 'Every version of Mac OS X has been built for Intel for 5 years. 'Every version of Mac OS X has been built for Intel for 5 years. 'Every version of Mac OS X has been built for Intel for 5 years.'

They've been work on this for 5 years, not 5 months. We are not dealing with Microsoft.

[VIREBEL661]

Here's to hoping that we keep the discreet graphics..... Please no Intel Integrated.....

[Yebot]

It would be very stupid of Apple to upgrade their consumer-level products while the Powerbook languishes with ancient G4s that have only seen modest speed gains in the past 2 years. The Powerbook line is one of their best selling product lines and the one most in need of the upgrade to Intel.

I suppose they could be thinking that they will wait until a particular processor is available, but that would also be stupid since they could always upgrade the processor anytime.

If the iBook was the first to make the transition, would they have to hold the speeds down so they don't eclipse the speeds of the Powerbooks? If so, what's the point? The speed of the current iBook lineup is only marginally slower than the Powerbook lineup.

I think either Thinksecret is blowing smoke up everyone's rear end or Apple is about to make a large blunder.

WRONG, It would be very stupid of Apple to put an Intel chip in a Powerbook before all the Pro-apps are ready.

If all you want to do is play with iTunes, surf Macrumors and send pictures of your dog to your mom then get the Intel-iBook and enjoy *thinking* that your machine is faster than everything else Apple sells.

It makes perfect sense to transition the iBooks, Mac mini's and perhaps the iMacs first. These are the machines that will sell even though Adobe and other pro-app vendors aren't ready to distribute universal binaries.

[ccrandall77]

Not really a prediction, but more a statement of what Apple should do if they were smart.

1.) Single-core Yonah Powerbooks over 2GHz with upgraded GPUs, slimmer design, and a 13.3" and/or 10.6" model.

2.) Celeron-M iBooks up to say 1.8GHz also with upgraded GPUs, slimmer design, widescreen displays in sizes matching the Powerbook line (cheaper if they are making fewer types of parts).

3.) Small upgrades to iPod Nano and Shuffle.

4.) Possible Celeron-M Mac Mini also up to 1.7 or 1.8GHz with a better GPU.

By June, I expect the Powerbooks to go dual-core, the iBooks will go to single-core Yonahs as will the Mac Mini. At this point, I see the iMac being considered for the dual-core Yonahs.

By the end of 2006, I think the 64-bit Intel chips will make their way into the Powerbook and iMac lines. Speed bumps for Mac Mini and iBook.

MWSF 2007 will introduce the Mactel PowerMacs.

Why do I think it should go this way? Well, as I said earlier the Powerbooks need the upgrade more than any other line, followed by the iBooks. That would leave the Mac Mini as the only G4 in the lineup. I could see them continuing to produce Mac Mini G4s until the inventory of G4s is exhausted... then they should go Intel. Producing Mactels, G4s, and G5s I don't think is a good idea. They need to reduce the different processor lines to save $$$.

The G5 products are not in desperate need up an upgrade. The PowerMacs are very fast machines and the iMacs aren't too slow either. I have the iMac G5-1.9GHz and it's a very good machine with a lot of life in it. I don't think it should be upgraded until either the dual-core Yonahs are ready or the 64-bit dual-core Intel chips are ready.

I also hope they finally ditch the acrylic/polished metal design of the iPod. The iPod-mini was the best designed of the iPods and they need to go back to that design. I have owned just about every iPod and my favorite is the iPod-mini... I just wish they'd put the color screen on it and doubled the capacity instead of coming out with the Nano.

New products for this year, possibly as soon as MWSF, should include:

1.) New Airport products using (pre-)802.11n technology.
2.) New Airport Express with HDMI for streaming HD and 5.1-7.1 audio and remote control capability.
3.) New Front Row application for all Macs with better performance
4.) Video encoding software to make iPod Video files easily (maybe an add-on to iMovie or Quicktime Pro)
5.) An HTPC add-on for the Mac Mini...

The HTPC add-on should look like the MiniMate or LaCie Mini Companion.
It should have additional firewire and USB2 ports.
It should contain a fat HDD (400+GB).
It should have 5.1-7.1 audio capability.
It should be able to record HD streams.
It should have an optional two-way cable card.
It should have builtin IR for use with the Apple Remote.

A Mac Mini with HTPC add-on would eliminate my need for a cable box, DVR, DVD player and stereo. You would just have that single component. Or, put the Mini + HTPC add-on in your bedroom and use the upgraded AX to connect to your home theater. Get an external Blu-ray or HD-DVD burner to burn HD content (I doubt we'll see these as an option on macs for a while until the format is standardized... so that's why I say it'd be an external drive).

[Super Dave]

Lower prices? How do they plan to do that without sacrificing quality?

Oh I get it now..

INTRODUCING THE ALL NEW 1.8GHz Apple iBook!

Powered by the blistering fast Intel® Celeron-M™ processor with Intel Extreme Integrated Graphics!!!

It's gonna stink like rat poo... But that's Apple now, not Apple a year ago -- the "We don't think video matters", firewire-pushing, RIAA-fingering company has turned into a "budget solution" company that "believes in variable pricing for songs" and "sees a place for video in the market"...

It's like the borg has taken over.

Ok, cheaping out on the FireWire port on the iPod I'll agree with. Bad move in its cheapness. But don't equate cheap iPods with cheap Macs. They are different departments and quite frankly Apple never cheaps out on their Macs. (*waiting for the flames*) The PowerBook has in both its 15 and 17" iteration FireWire 800 and a backlit keyboard. Who needs this stuff?! No one, but it makes life that much more grand to have it. Even Apple's entry level machines have FireWire ports while PC users are like "fire what?"

Regarding video for iPod I think it's a good hedging of bets. It prevents anyone else from stealing their thunder. If video takes off it will now be on the iPod. If it dies, then it's a non-issue because the iPod is still great for music.

I guess what I'm saying is that your argument lacks consistency. You equate budget consciousness with inclusion of video. I think what you are saying is that Apple is moving away from where you think they should be going. That doesn't mean they are moving in the wrong direction.

David :cool:

PS - Regarding Apple introducing variable pricing on songs… I'll believe it when I see it. Some EMI exec shooting his mouth off doesn't hold much sway in my books.

[wilburpan]

Yeah, but Mac OS X doesn't exactly cost them "nothing", R&D costs for OS X will be high, and I'll bet that boxed sales of Tiger et al doesn't cover the cost of development, so they have to put part of the Mac hardware sales towards that. I'd be surprised if the necessary "cut" of the Mac profit that goes back to pay for OS X development isn't the same or more as what Dell pays for Windows ($50 a machine or something?).
Those costs are still internal to the Apple as a company, whereas Dell's cost for the Microsoft tax is money out the door. Since Apple will continue to develop OS X regardless which hardware they are producing, this will be a fixed cost regardless of hardware development.

Besides, overall Intel based computers are commodity products. There are so many suppliers that profit margins are very thin on the hardware side. At one point, Dell was even looking at not putting on stickers on their computers in an attempt to save costs. Not having an external cost for the operating system puts Apple in a very good competitive position.

[Super Dave]

<snip>
4.) Video encoding software to make iPod Video files easily (maybe an add-on to iMovie or Quicktime Pro)
<snip>

QuickTime 7.0.3 has this.

David:cool:

[nuckinfutz]

Yebot

thank you for utilizing common sense.

Also I don't know why people on here are assuming that a Pentium M laptop is by default faster than a G4 based laptop.

A 1.5Ghz Pentium M is going to be slightly faster than the current G4 based iBooks of today. However it won't be faster than a 1.7Ghz G4 if the Powerbooks can get there with a 7448 Freescale chip.

Consumers will likely be satiated by an iLife 06 and iWork 2 for Intel Macs. The other app support will come.

Powerbook users need Office, Adobe and a plethora of apps to be ready. No reason not to wait.

[ccrandall77]

WRONG, It would be very stupid of Apple to put an Intel chip in a Powerbook before all the Pro-apps are ready.

If all you want to do is play with iTunes, surf Macrumors and send pictures of your dog to your mom then get the Intel-iBook and enjoy *thinking* that your machine is faster than everything else Apple sells.

It makes perfect sense to transition the iBooks, Mac mini's and perhaps the iMacs first. These are the machines that will sell even though Adobe and other pro-app vendors aren't ready to distribute universal binaries.

:rolleyes: First, how do you know that the Pro-apps aren't going to be ready for MWSF. Demonstrations have shown that most apps require very little effort to port over to x86.

Second, how do you know that the performance hit taken by using Rosetta would outweigh the performance gain of a 2GHz+ Yonah?

Third, it's not going to matter if a G4-1.67 is slightly faster than a 2.0GHz Yonah for running Pro apps in Rosetta (and I'm VERY skeptical this is the case), you are either going to have to make the iBook line slower so people won't automatically assume it's a much better machine or you are going to have to do a pretty darn good job of marketing the Powerbooks over the iBooks or people will just buy the cheaper iBooks.

And even if the Pro-apps aren't quite ready by MWSF, how many Powerbook owners run pro-apps? I've owned 2 Powerbooks and I've never run a Pro-app. I know plenty of Powerbook owners who don't run Pro-apps. And there are going to be so many other apps that'll run FASTER on a Mactel iBook that it'll make buying a G4-1.67GHz Powerbook a dumb idea.

Your Pro-app arguement for holding back the Powerbook upgrade simply doesn't hold any water in my opinion.

[bigandy]

ooh ooh ooh. i can't wait for MWSF.

[leontief]

Yes, that caught my eye too. I had a "PowerPC Ready" PowerBook 520C. It was a 68040, of course. IIRC there was some way a CPU module would get installed, but I never saw or heard of one for it.

As an aside, they were available from Apple for a very short time, and from Newer for a few years...I used my Blackbird (540grayscale) with a NewerTech NUpowr 500/183c upgrade (183 MHz 603e w/128K level 2 cache) until I replaced it with a Pismo. It worked well and IMHO there just wasn't any portable worth buying, and with better design, between the two. More info here: http://lowendmac.com/pb/540.shtml

[BRLawyer]

Here's to hoping that we keep the discreet graphics..... Please no Intel Integrated.....

It's kinda funny to see this kind of wish, now that we're moving to Intel...

I thought every PC user (and most Mac users in this forum) out there criticized Macs for not having the best GFX...now reality sets in...MOST PC laptops have, indeed, IIG...therefore, MOST PC laptops have worse GFX than even older iBook and PB offers...

[jaw04005]

I predict Apple replaces the G4 processor with a Celeron M in the iBook line, and moves to Intel Integrated Graphics.

[dr_lha]

Those costs are still internal to the Apple as a company, whereas Dell's cost for the Microsoft tax is money out the door. Since Apple will continue to develop OS X regardless which hardware they are producing, this will be a fixed cost regardless of hardware development.

Doesn't really matter if its money out the door or not, its still money that Apple have to spend, I'm guessing the cost of them developing their own OS is similar to that of buying one off Microsoft (if not more expensive). By developing its own OS Apple has to spend millions that Dell doesn't, that expenditure has to be recouped somehow, the most obvious way is the premium they place on the price of Apple hardware.

I think this is perfectly fine also, clearly a Mac with no extra software does a hell of a lot more than a new Dell PC with Windows XP installed only.

[weezer160]

Can someone explain to me what options the iBook has as far as Intel chips. I mean, I've seen people say that any varient of the even the lowest Intel chips will give the PB a run for its money, I just wanna know what's so special about the Intel chips. I think that Intel can deliver power in large quantities (after all, they ARE Intel). Are there significant differences architecture wise? And if so, where do these advantages lie? For example, is the L2 cache bigger? Bus speed? I know the G4 lacks in those areas, but for a CISC chip, it's gotta have significant differences to make it compete with the Altivec in the G4, right? Or is the Altivec in the G4 that outdated? :confused:

[dr_lha]

:rolleyes: First, how do you know that the Pro-apps aren't going to be ready for MWSF. Demonstrations have shown that most apps require very little effort to port over to x86.

Second, how do you know that the performance hit taken by using Rosetta would outweigh the performance gain of a 2GHz+ Yonah?

Third, it's not going to matter if a G4-1.67 is slightly faster than a 2.0GHz Yonah for running Pro apps in Rosetta (and I'm VERY skeptical this is the case), you are either going to have to make the iBook line slower so people won't automatically assume it's a much better machine or you are going to have to do a pretty darn good job of marketing the Powerbooks over the iBooks or people will just buy the cheaper iBooks.

And even if the Pro-apps aren't quite ready by MWSF, how many Powerbook owners run pro-apps? I've owned 2 Powerbooks and I've never run a Pro-app. I know plenty of Powerbook owners who don't run Pro-apps. And there are going to be so many other apps that'll run FASTER on a Mactel iBook that it'll make buying a G4-1.67GHz Powerbook a dumb idea.

Your Pro-app arguement for holding back the Powerbook upgrade simply doesn't hold any water in my opinion.
There's a big difference between "Pro-Apps" here. One category is Apple Pro-Apps which are probably developed in XCode, and apart from endian issues (which can be huge, don't underestimate them in any software projects), should be easy to port.

Then you have the 3rd party pro-apps: Photoshop being the biggest. Is it developed in XCode? Probably not, most likely Codewarrior? Adobe will either have to port it to XCode or develop their own system to make Universal binary. Porting Photoshop to a new IDE won't be trivial.

Personally I highly doubt any of the Pro-Apps will be ready in January, except maybe for Beta-testing. We'll see.

[Mord]

Can someone explain to me what options the iBook has as far as Intel chips. I mean, I've seen people say that any varient of the even the lowest Intel chips will give the PB a run for its money, I just wanna know what's so special about the Intel chips. I think that Intel can deliver power in large quantities (after all, they ARE Intel). Are there significant differences architecture wise? And if so, where do these advantages lie? For example, is the L2 cache bigger? Bus speed? I know the G4 lacks in those areas, but for a CISC chip, it's gotta have significant differences to make it compete with the Altivec in the G4, right? Or is the Altivec in the G4 that outdated? :confused:

odd that it's me saying it but:

modern x86 cpu's are all but RISC cpu's they basically are a RISC cpu with a CISC translation layer, the pentium M had a short pipeline an excellent branch predictor a huge L2 cache on top of a decently fast bus they basically fixed all the flaws of the pentium 3 and stapped a P4 bus to it and it worked rather well, yonah and on will use a much much more ground up design, the big change is that intel is no longer clock speed mad and now they can spend that massive R&D budget effectively rather than on deepening pipelines and pumping clock speed.

[Yebot]

:rolleyes: First, how do you know that the Pro-apps aren't going to be ready for MWSF. Demonstrations have shown that most apps require very little effort to port over to x86.

Second, how do you know that the performance hit taken by using Rosetta would outweigh the performance gain of a 2GHz+ Yonah?

Third, it's not going to matter if a G4-1.67 is slightly faster than a 2.0GHz Yonah for running Pro apps in Rosetta (and I'm VERY skeptical this is the case), you are either going to have to make the iBook line slower so people won't automatically assume it's a much better machine or you are going to have to do a pretty darn good job of marketing the Powerbooks over the iBooks or people will just buy the cheaper iBooks.

And even if the Pro-apps aren't quite ready by MWSF, how many Powerbook owners run pro-apps? I've owned 2 Powerbooks and I've never run a Pro-app. I know plenty of Powerbook owners who don't run Pro-apps. And there are going to be so many other apps that'll run FASTER on a Mactel iBook that it'll make buying a G4-1.67GHz Powerbook a dumb idea.

Your Pro-app arguement for holding back the Powerbook upgrade simply doesn't hold any water in my opinion.

I don't know that pro-apps won't be ready by January. I only know what the rumors are saying. (This is a rumors site.)

Adobe has come out and said that Photoshop for Intel is taking a long time. Does that mean they won't be ready for january? might.

But if the rumors are true about the iBook coming first -- I'm telling you that it makes sense. Again, you raise the point the Apple would have to be "marketing the Powerbooks over the iBooks". I remind you, Powerbooks are NOT in competition with iBooks. Apple sells iBooks to soccer moms, 7th graders, grandparents, and iPod-freaks. They sell Powerbooks to design pros, musicians and video-gods. The people that need pro-apps to maintain thier livelyhoods are going to be the most reluctant to adopt unproven techonolgy.

Or course, judging from your signature, you seem to buy every Apple product in the lineup which makes you a minority customer. (Most people get by with one machine.)

Your admission that you've owned two Powerbooks and never run a pro-app and that all your friends own Powerbooks but don't run pro-apps tells me that you have too much money than you know what to do with. You should have gone with an iBook. Oh wait ... you have one of those too. Nevermind.

[ITR 81]

PRICE POINTS:

My guesses
Low end iBook will come in at around $699-750.
Mid range iBook will come in at around $850-999.
Top range iBook will come in at around $1,050-1,199.

[dr_lha]

Apple sells iBooks to soccer moms, 7th graders, grandparents, and iPod-freaks.
You missed out a huge market for the iBook: College Students. I see loads of iBooks around my Campus, and my wife who is a student also has a iBook for her work. In fact I'd consider the "student" demographic to be much larger than any of the ones you listed above.

However as a Student's main usage for an iBook will be web, email and Office (they sell students Office 2004 for $50 at my University and its use is required for almost everything), which don't require too much grunt, and will probably work fine even under Rosetta.

[xejn]

...it may rain or snow today, with a chance of sun.


Looks, it's a Mac Mini, no it's an iMac, no it's an iBook...or is it a PowerBook.

Is it all or none of these?

Based on the rumor rumblings, my prediction is this:
-- as other have said up thread, the rumor mill is covering it's bases.
or
-- if I am reading the tea-leaves correctly, January's Mac World is shaping up to be an all Intel rollout of the consumer line, with PowerBooks following quickly.

It's the PowerBook that is the tricky part. We all expect some sort of speed bump out of this switch--otherwise why are we putting up with yet another migration--thus, we expect the iBook to be faster after the switch, but how fast. Well, if the intelBook is faster then a PPC PowerBook, is Apple really willing to release the intelBook first? Does this mean the intelBook will be no faster than a current model PowerBook? Things that make you go...hmmmm...

[zakatov]

You missed out a huge market for the iBook: College Students.

I second that. About 3:1 ratio of iBooks to PBooks at my college

[the_ki]

This is all conjecture, but seems logical to me:

The Apple ProApps are probably already running on Intel processors, so as far as Powerbooks going Intel, that's a non-issue.

As for Photoshop: Photoshop (and all of the Adobe apps, for that matter) rely on a plug-in architecture to add in new features. The raw code base doesn't change that much from version to version. Altivec support was enabled in Photoshop 5.5 via a plug-in and probably still exists as a plug-in.

I have Photoshop 7 on my PC at work, and there is an MMXCore.8BX plug-in. I can't confirm this, but surely the PC version of Photoshop CS2 has an SSE3 plug-in.

So... how hard would it be for Adobe to release the Mac version of the SSE3 plug-in? (That's not rhetorical; I'd like an answer.) The Altivec plugins in Photoshop are replaced with SSE3 plugins (which essentially already exist). The rest of Photoshop is handled by Rosetta, which yields a 30% hit to performance. The Intel processors in this new theoretical Powerbook already kick the crap out of a G4, so even with Rosetta running, Photoshop users are still getting a faster system.

Thus, Powerbooks are safe to go Intel. Sure, there are plenty of other apps other than Photoshop, but if Photoshop is the largest concern, then it seems there's a way to easily address it.

Am I completely high, or doesn't that make sense?

[bretm]

trust me when I say you ain't the only one thinkin along them there lines

Errr... the software will be recompiled to run on the new OSX, which is based on fat binaries (or something like that) meaning your old software will still run on your ppc (duh) and the new software will be created in such a way that it runs on either processor. There is no worry. As far as the computer user is concerned this is really no different than a switch from G4 to G5. The software manufacturers will have to make the adjustments. But just like software that is now developed to use a G5, it still runs on G4.

[bretm]

Powerbooks will use the newer chips that aren't out yet. Ditto with towers. The ibooks will most likely use the current intel chips, along the lines of G4 speed. Not as fast as the G5s. I mean, you don't get the best intel chip in a sub $1000 notebook, even on windows.

...it may rain or snow today, with a chance of sun.


Looks, it's a Mac Mini, no it's an iMac, no it's an iBook...or is it a PowerBook.

Is it all or none of these?

Based on the rumor rumblings, my prediction is this:
-- as other have said up thread, the rumor mill is covering it's bases.
or
-- if I am reading the tea-leaves correctly, January's Mac World is shaping up to be an all Intel rollout of the consumer line, with PowerBooks following quickly.

It's the PowerBook that is the tricky part. We all expect some sort of speed bump out of this switch--otherwise why are we putting up with yet another migration--thus, we expect the iBook to be faster after the switch, but how fast. Well, if the intelBook is faster then a PPC PowerBook, is Apple really willing to release the intelBook first? Does this mean the intelBook will be no faster than a current model PowerBook? Things that make you go...hmmmm...

[ccrandall77]

Yebot

thank you for utilizing common sense.

Also I don't know why people on here are assuming that a Pentium M laptop is by default faster than a G4 based laptop.

A 1.5Ghz Pentium M is going to be slightly faster than the current G4 based iBooks of today. However it won't be faster than a 1.7Ghz G4 if the Powerbooks can get there with a 7448 Freescale chip.

Consumers will likely be satiated by an iLife 06 and iWork 2 for Intel Macs. The other app support will come.

Powerbook users need Office, Adobe and a plethora of apps to be ready. No reason not to wait.

Why do you assume the iBook would get a Pentium-M 1.5GHz??? If it did, then I say they are holding back the upgrade on the iBook from what it should be.

Personally I say SO WHAT if Pro-apps aren't ready. 1.) I doubt the performance difference between a Mactel + Rosetta won't be much different from any G4 they put in the Powerbook, 2.) As others have already said, the Pro-apps run like crap on the current Powerbooks already... will a 7448 at 1.7GHz make THAT big of a difference? I doubt it since it the application would need to be able to take advantage of dual cores (if that's what the 7448 offers). And I doubt the bus speeds would pick up much either with a 7448, 3.) You don't know if the pro apps are ready or not anyway.

[xli_ne]

I predict Apple replaces the G4 processor with a Celeron M in the iBook line, and moves to Intel Integrated Graphics.


lets pray to the gods that this never happens

[themacman]

are there any pictures of what a redisgned ibook/ powerbook imac could look like?

[NickFalk]

...Personally I say SO WHAT if Pro-apps aren't ready. 1.) I doubt the performance difference between a Mactel + Rosetta won't be much different from any G4 they put in the Powerbook...
Well actually the Powerbook performance will be infinitely much better for any Altivec demanding application. They won't run on on Intel using Rosetta at all...

[mdavey]

It's the PowerBook that is the tricky part. We all expect some sort of speed bump out of this switch--otherwise why are we putting up with yet another migration--thus, we expect the iBook to be faster after the switch, but how fast. Well, if the intelBook is faster then a PPC PowerBook, is Apple really willing to release the intelBook first? Does this mean the intelBook will be no faster than a current model PowerBook? Things that make you go...hmmmm...


Beautifully put. There is one other complication with the PowerBook range - it is currently on a 64bit processor but both the single-core and dual-core processors that Intel have announced for January are 32bit. So PowerBook will either (a) have to go back to 32bit for a bit, or (b) there will be a period where iBook will be on faster Intel and PowerBook will be on slower G4, or (c) Apple will bump the PowerBook to G5 (perhaps the 7448 that others have discussed), or (d) Apple will announce both iBooks and Powerbooks a MWSF but with shipping several weeks later, or perhaps (e) Apple will only announce an Intel Mac mini (and iHome?) at MWSF after all. Hmmmm indeed!


Edited - stupid mistake, PowerBook is G4 and 32bit.

[Some_Big_Spoon]

So, if they leave the PB's as is and do this, expect ibooks to be crippled as all get out so as not to infringe on the oh-so-craptacular "power"books.

It's going to be a weird year or two.

[ccrandall77]

Or course, judging from your signature, you seem to buy every Apple product in the lineup which makes you a minority customer. (Most people get by with one machine.)

Your admission that you've owned two Powerbooks and never run a pro-app and that all your friends own Powerbooks but don't run pro-apps tells me that you have too much money than you know what to do with. You should have gone with an iBook. Oh wait ... you have one of those too. Nevermind.

Well, why I buy the products I do and how I choose to spend my money are neither anyone's business nor relevant to this conversation. There are plenty of reasons one would get a Powerbook over an iBook:

1.) Quality --- read the forums, iBooks are often problematic... my personal experience validates that assumption as well
2.) Size --- the 12" PB is lighter and thinner than the iBook
3.) Superdrive option was not available for the 12" iBook
4.) Better GPU in the Powerbook
5.) Mini-DVI out in the Powerbook, mini-VGA in the iBook
6.) Mirroring and Dual-displays in the Powerbook
7.) Powerbook simply looks nicer than the iBook, IMO
8.) And then throw in a slightly faster CPU, bus, and RAM

By your same argument, why wouldn't I just get a piece of crap Dell for $499 and run Outlook, IE, and M$ Office.

While I understand that some people buy a laptop to run pro-apps and to use as a desktop replacement, seriously there are going to be more people that want a Powerbook for the reasons I give rather than as a machine to run Adobe or FCP. And realistically, for most people, the PowerMac is a more appropriate machine to run those applications on anyway.

[nagromme]

You've got to admit, as nice as all these Intel at MWSF rumors would be, when was the last time Apple was ahead of schedule?
And how many times has Apple been BEHIND schedule on a new model for reasons other than IBM and Motorola not delivering chips? They're not in this picture.


Apple's profit on an Intel iBook will automatically be higher than Dell's profit on a similarly spec'ed notebook because Apple doesn't have to pay Microsoft a licensing fee for Windows.

True--but at the same time. Apple DOES have to pay for the DEVELOPMENT and SUPPORT of their own OS, and Apple doesn't use Dell's cheap components, and Apple doesn't benefit from Dell's economies of scale.


Re integrated Intel graphics: yes, it's worse than what most Macs have had for a long time. But I would not object to it on the low-end: MANY people do not NEED anything more. So if Apple wants to offer them a cheaper model, that's fine with me. I won't buy it, but where's the harm in the option? It would be a fine choice for some people.

I actually hope Apple DOES offer new models with lower specs (other than CPU speed) than anything they now sell. Offer an iBook and Mac Mini with minimal HD, RAM, graphics, etc.--but PRICE it accordingly. The great OS X experience would still be there, at a new lower entry price that still meets the needs of low-end users very well.

[ccrandall77]

Beautifully put. There is one other complication with the PowerBook range - it is currently on a 64bit processor but both the single-core and dual-core processors that Intel have announced for January are 32bit. So PowerBook will either (a) have to go back to 32bit for a bit, or (b) there will be a period where iBook will be on faster Intel and PowerBook will be on slower G4, or (c) Apple will bump the PowerBook to G5 (perhaps the 7448 that others have discussed), or (d) Apple will announce both iBooks and Powerbooks a MWSF but with shipping several weeks later, or perhaps (e) Apple will only announce an Intel Mac mini (and iHome?) at MWSF after all. Hmmmm indeed!

I see your reasoning, but IIRC the G4 is also a 32-bit processor. The G5 is the 64-bit processor.

I have similar concerns about the desktops possibly going from 64-bit to 32-bit, however, most people won't notice and won't care. I, however, use PowerMacs to run numerical models and it could affect me. I'd hate to go back to buying a Solaris or SGI machine and lose out on XGrid... even if the desktops eventually go back to a 64-bit chip from Intel.

[ccrandall77]

Well actually the Powerbook performance will be infinitely much better for any Altivec demanding application. They won't run on on Intel using Rosetta at all...

I share this concern (refer to my last post). But it didn't seem like many application were taking advantage of Altivec, sadly. I was hoping with the Intel switch that they'd add Altivec either on the processor (that's one way to distinguish it from normal x86) or as a co-processor.

From what I've heard, Altivec enabled apps will run in a "G3" mode. But how many apps will really be affected by this? And how many apps that most Powerbook owners run will be affected by this? How many by the time these machines ship?

However, as some have suggested, the hyperthreading and other architectural advantages to an Intel processor may outweigh the benefits of Altivec. And I've heard that Altivec instructions could be imitated by x86 instructions. I'm not a computer engineer, though, so...

[dernhelm]

I predict Apple replaces the G4 processor with a Celeron M in the iBook line, and moves to Intel Integrated Graphics.

You aren't likely far off here. One thing I'm pretty sure about. you won't see dual-core Intels in the iBook line. That'll be reserved for the Powerbook line. It's been too long now since the processor was a major point of difference between the iBook and Powerbook lines.

[Lurch_Mojoff]

It's kinda funny to see this kind of wish, now that we're moving to Intel...

I thought every PC user (and most Mac users in this forum) out there criticized Macs for not having the best GFX...now reality sets in...MOST PC laptops have, indeed, IIG...therefore, MOST PC laptops have worse GFX than even older iBook and PB offers...

Amen!

[plinden]

MWSF announcements - my predictions

Intel Mac mini solo 1.6GHz - from $399 - shipping today
No - if by solo you mean single core Yonah, that'll be too expensive for the Mini. I'm predicting a 1.6GHz Celeron-M in the Minis. That'll be plenty for it.


Intel Home Theater solo 1.6GHz CPU + HT GPU - from $599 - shipping today

12" Intel iBook solo 1.6GHz - $499 - shipping within 12 weeks

Make that $699.


13" Widescreen Intel iBook solo 1.8GHz - $699 - shipping within 12 weeks

Make that $999


14" Intel iBook solo 1.8GHz - $999 - shipping within 12 weeks

Make that $1299


15" widescreen Intel PowerBook dual 1.8GHz - shipping within 12 weeks
17" widescreen Intel PowerBook dual 1.8GHz - shipping within 12 weeks
17" widescreen Intel PowerBook dual 2.1GHz - shipping within 12 weeks

[NickFalk]

From what I've heard, Altivec enabled apps will run in a "G3" mode. But how many apps will really be affected by this?
Well as far as I know 100% of Apples Pro apps actually require Altivec to run and therefore won't run through Rosetta. Photoshop however will run but will not benefit from the speed-gains Altivec provides.

I'm no expert but as far as I understand (as a layman) Altivec is an additional "layer" with a 128 bit instruction-set. I do have a nagging feeling that I've read somewhere that Intel actually have a similiar technology, but there's no way programs will benefit from this until they've been recompiled...

[plinden]

You'd be surprised to know that the celeron M is essentially a Pentium M with lower l2 cache..
And minus speedstep so battery life isn't as good. But it's just as fast as an equivalently clocked P-M, and cheaper, but tops out at 1.6GHz

[winmacguy]

A lot of talk about Apple needing to aggressively price their laptops. That would be nice if the switch to Intel lead to decent price slashes across all the product lines.
This could be good with the only potential downside coming from not having enough Intel iBooks to meet initial demand although hopefully with Intel this wont be an issue this time round.;)

[Ace25]

I don't understand why Adobe, Macromedia, etc. don't just give out free downloads of their windows software to current mac keyholders? For instance, I currently have Adobe cs2, couldn't they just give me the free compatible download for my new Mactel? Wouldn't those programs be able to run on the x86 mactels?

Plus, it would cost close to nothing form those companies to offer the downloads.

Any help here?

[ccrandall77]

Well as far as I know 100% of Apples Pro apps actually require Altivec to run and therefore won't run through Rosetta. Photoshop however will run but will not benefit from the speed-gains Altivec provides.

I'm no expert but as far as I understand (as a layman) Altivec is an additional "layer" with a 128 bit instruction-set. I do have a nagging feeling that I've read somewhere that Intel actually have a similiar technology, but there's no way programs will benefit from this until they've been recompiled...

What do you mean by "Apple's Pro apps"? Are you talking about stuff like iLife '05? I don't think that needs Altivec as I've seen it run just fine on stock x86 hardware (and faster than on my iMac G5-1.9). Or are you talking about FPC, Adobe, etc.?

I agree losing Altivec is sad. But I still don't feel that the iBook should get a big upgrade before the Powerbook. Even a dual-core G4 offering would at least make the Powerbook stand out against the iBook. But, I don't see this happening as it would be a very short-lived processor upgrade since the Powerbooks are going to go to the Intel CPU this year. I think it would make the most sense to get all the G4 machines onto Intel ASAP and then work on converting the G5s next. Three CPU lines I wouldn't think would be cost effective... except if they continued to put G4s in the Mini until the supply of G4s run out.

[Lurch_Mojoff]

I share this concern (refer to my last post). But it didn't seem like many application were taking advantage of Altivec, sadly. I was hoping with the Intel switch that they'd add Altivec either on the processor (that's one way to distinguish it from normal x86) or as a co-processor.

There is little need for adding Altivec module to x86 chips (which will cost money, precisely the thing Apple were trying to avoid by switching to Intel chips) or as a DSP chip to Intel based Macs. SEE3, although having its advantages and disadvantages to Altivec, will do pretty much the same job.

From what I've heard, Altivec enabled apps will run in a "G3" mode. But how many apps will really be affected by this? And how many apps that most Powerbook owners run will be affected by this? How many by the time these machines ship?

Actually most vector calculation aware apps use Apple's Accelerate framework, which, as surprising as it may sound :), is already "translated" to use SSE3. So the "G3 mode" under Rosetta argument is pretty pointless - there are very, very few apps that use pure Altivec code - all the rest should just work, be it under emulation or not.

However, as some have suggested, the hyperthreading and other architectural advantages to an Intel processor may outweigh the benefits of Altivec. And I've heard that Altivec instructions could be imitated by x86 instructions. I'm not a computer engineer, though, so...

Yes, they can be imitated (hint SSE3 :)). And, yes, on paper Intel's next crop of mobile cores show a lot of benefits over G4 - multiple cores, lower or same power consumption with higher clock speeds, virtualization, eventually 64bit calculation, etc. - which should result in more practical productivity.

[NickFalk]

For instance, I currently have Adobe cs2, couldn't they just give me the free compatible download for my new Mactel? Wouldn't those programs be able to run on the x86 mactels?
Well if the program was coded and compiled for OSX on intel it would obviously work. However there is a lot more to creating a OSX Intel-version of a program. Once again, I'm a layman, so feel free to correct me.
;)

While Macs and "PCs" will now share the same processor-architecture they will still run different OS'es from the core up. In a sense I believe this is similar to sharing an alphabet if you like. Hugo, Shakespeare and Ibsen all used the same letters but with different, I guess incompatible, languages. For an english reader Hugo's and Ibsen's works would have to be translated before they made any sense...

[NickFalk]

What do you mean by "Apple's Pro apps"? Are you talking about stuff like iLife '05?
iLife certainly don't come in the vicinity of being Pro apps. Sure they're good/great consumer applications but let's get real. ;) I'm talking about Final Cut, Logic, Shake, DVD-Studio etc.

[dr_lha]

I don't understand why Adobe, Macromedia, etc. don't just give out free downloads of their windows software to current mac keyholders? For instance, I currently have Adobe cs2, couldn't they just give me the free compatible download for my new Mactel? Wouldn't those programs be able to run on the x86 mactels?

Plus, it would cost close to nothing form those companies to offer the downloads.

Any help here?

If they did this, they might as well drop Mac support all together, as they're basically saying: Sure our apps don't work on these new Macs under OSX, but you can install Windows on them anyway so just run our software under that.

[ccrandall77]

There is little need for adding Altivec module to x86 chips (which will cost money, precisely the thing Apple were trying to avoid by switching to Intel chips) or as a DSP chip to Intel based Macs. SEE3, although having its advantages and disadvantages to Altivec, will do pretty much the same job.

Actually most vector calculation aware apps use Apple's Accelerate framework, which, as surprising as it may sound :), is already "translated" to use SSE3. So the "G3 mode" under Rosetta argument is pretty pointless - there are very, very few apps that use pure Altivec code - all the rest should just work, be it under emulation or not.

Yes, they can be imitated (hint SSE3 :)). And, yes, on paper Intel's next crop of mobile cores show a lot of benefits over G4 - multiple cores, lower or same power consumption with higher clock speeds, virtualization, eventually 64bit calculation, etc. - which should result in more practical productivity.

That is good to hear. However, there are certain types of operations that require vector processing that I believe SSE3 cannot do... and those are the ops that are important to me in my numerical modeling. But, I understand that type of programming is not what most Apple customers are going to be concerned with, so I don't think it should influence architectural decisions in upcoming products. Still, it would've been nice to have had Altivec in the new machines (particularly the PowerMacs and XServes)... at least for me.

[ccrandall77]

iLife certainly don't come in the vicinity of being Pro apps. Sure they're good/great consumer applications but let's get real. ;) I'm talking about Final Cut, Logic, Shake, DVD-Studio etc.

That's what I figured, but since you said "Apple's Pro Apps" I thought you might be referring to applications actually created by Apple... and when I responded I was thinking FPC was not created by Apple. My bad.

[NickFalk]

...and when I responded I was thinking FPC was not created by Apple. My bad.
Well you're not too far off. Originally FCP started life as a Macromedia application I think, but they abandoned it, Apple bought it, cleaned it up, continued to develop it into the jewel in their software-crown. (As far as I'm concerned). ;)

[Yebot]

I don't understand why Adobe, Macromedia, etc. don't just give out free downloads of their windows software to current mac keyholders? For instance, I currently have Adobe cs2, couldn't they just give me the free compatible download for my new Mactel? Wouldn't those programs be able to run on the x86 mactels?

Plus, it would cost close to nothing form those companies to offer the downloads.

Any help here?

You wont be able to run a Windows app on an Intel-based Mac. (Unless the rumors about being able to run separate Windows environment on the same machine are true.)

[AUBPsych]

Maybe its just me but doesn't it seem like the rumor sites are "covering all bases" like they did earlier this year?

Agreed.

[Ace25]

Well if the program was coded and compiled for OSX on intel it would obviously work. However there is a lot more to creating a OSX Intel-version of a program. Once again, I'm a layman, so feel free to correct me.
;)

While Macs and "PCs" will now share the same processor-architecture they will still run different OS'es from the core up. In a sense I believe this is similar to sharing an alphabet if you like. Hugo, Shakespeare and Ibsen all used the same letters but with different, I guess incompatible, languages. For an english reader Hugo's and Ibsen's works would have to be translated before they made any sense...

Got it, thanks. That makes sense. Good explanation.

[Lurch_Mojoff]

What do you mean by "Apple's Pro apps"? Are you talking about stuff like iLife '05? I don't think that needs Altivec as I've seen it run just fine on stock x86 hardware (and faster than on my iMac G5-1.9). Or are you talking about FPC, Adobe, etc.?

I agree losing Altivec is sad. But I still don't feel that the iBook should get a big upgrade before the Powerbook. Even a dual-core G4 offering would at least make the Powerbook stand out against the iBook. But, I don't see this happening as it would be a very short-lived processor upgrade since the Powerbooks are going to go to the Intel CPU this year. I think it would make the most sense to get all the G4 machines onto Intel ASAP and then work on converting the G5s next. Three CPU lines I wouldn't think would be cost effective... except if they continued to put G4s in the Mini until the supply of G4s run out.

"Apple pro apps" = Final Cut Studio, Shake, Logic Pro, Aperture
"Apple prosumer apps" = Final Cut Express HD, Logic Express
"Apple consumer apps" = iLife, iWork

Anyway, as I said a couple post above, if a program uses Accelerate framework it should Just Work™. And so should programs that use Apple's Audio Units and Image Units. And vector code is just a small part of most programs, so ultimately they should work faster on faster chips.

I agree with you that Apple should move all G4 products to x86 and then go on moving G5 ones. G5 is a very good at what it is designed to do and in its recent dual version it will continue giving enough performance for at least 18 months. Nothing in Intel's current lineup can top with big enough margin G5s, especially when it comes to 64 bit calculations. In 18 months however...

G4 on the other hand is a terminal patient. It's been agonizing for way too long now. It's for the best if Apple lets it go. I doubt, however, that Intel's Yonah will be in high enough supply so early after its debut, for Apple to replace G4 with it in all product lines. By mid 2006 - maybe, but earlier, I'm not sure.

[Lurch_Mojoff]

That is good to hear. However, there are certain types of operations that require vector processing that I believe SSE3 cannot do... and those are the ops that are important to me in my numerical modeling. But, I understand that type of programming is not what most Apple customers are going to be concerned with, so I don't think it should influence architectural decisions in upcoming products. Still, it would've been nice to have had Altivec in the new machines (particularly the PowerMacs and XServes)... at least for me.

You are right, in some rare cases, especially some scientific computations, the Altivec instructions cannot be translated to SSE. That is really unfortunate and I personally hope Intel will address these cases in a future version of SSE.

However, most of these instruction are not in G4's implementation of Altivec (actually, I'm not sure if there are any at all). And for "the rest of us" there are still G5 Powermacs and Xservs.

[toneloco2881]

"Apple pro apps" = Final Cut Studio, Shake, Logic Pro, Aperture
"Apple prosumer apps" = Final Cut Express HD, Logic Express
"Apple consumer apps" = iLife, iWork

Anyway, as I said a couple post above, if a program uses Accelerate framework it should Just Work™. And so should programs that use Apple's Audio Units and Image Units. And vector code is just a small part of most programs, so ultimately they should work faster on faster chips.

I agree with you that Apple should move all G4 products to x86 and then go on moving G5 ones. G5 is a very good at what it is designed to do and in its recent dual version it will continue giving enough performance for at least 18 months. Nothing in Intel's current lineup can top with big enough margin G5s, especially when it comes to 64 bit calculations. In 18 months however...

G4 on the other hand is a terminal patient. It's been agonizing for way too long now. It's for the best if Apple lets it go. I doubt, however, that Intel's Yonah will be in high enough supply so early after its debut, for Apple to replace G4 with it in all product lines. By mid 2006 - maybe, but earlier, I'm not sure.
Good post! I don't think intel's sampling of Yonah is going to be a problem here. From all accounts yields are going great at the moment, and shipments may actually be supplied to manufacturers before the close of the year. It's official introduction is probably going to be at CES early in january, so a MWSF introduction is HIGHLY likely.

[generik]

You wont be able to run a Windows app on an Intel-based Mac. (Unless the rumors about being able to run separate Windows environment on the same machine are true.)

Google for Darwine on this

[kenaustus]

"We'll hit 3 Ghz by next summer," Steve Jobs, WWDC 2004.


Right after Steve said that an IBM VP walked on stage and said exactly the same thing.

IBM's (not Apple's) failure to deliver the 3 Ghz is probably one of the reasons why Mactels are in the future.

[jade]

It makes perfect sense to start with Intel iBooks. I aslo imagine they will be significantly faster for Standard apps than the G4 iBooks and PBs. (Mobile intels perform comparative to 1.5-2 times their clockspeeds to translate to desktop units. The ratio of mobile P4 to G4 more like 1.25-1.5:1. Apple should have also finished the iApps by this time. There will not be much cannibalization since the "pro users" need theis apps native, and those people shopping for "looks" will buy or wait.

The fence sitters will probably take the plunge. The chip and component pricing should still make it possible for a similarly speced ibook with a P4 to drop in price significantly (memory, hard drives, video cards, wireless chipsets) have all come down in price as of late.

[Lurch_Mojoff]

You wont be able to run a Windows app on an Intel-based Mac. (Unless the rumors about being able to run separate Windows environment on the same machine are true.)

Well, they are somewhat true - for one you haveDarwine (http://darwine.opendarwin.org//). And then again, there are rumors (or wishes?) for virtual machines (e.g. VirtualPC) running at native speeds and Intel's Vanderpool virtualization (http://www.intel.com/technology/computing/vptech/) in Yonah, which is not a rumor, but whether and how it will be used is (edit: by Apple that is).

[blufire]

You aren't likely far off here. One thing I'm pretty sure about. you won't see dual-core Intels in the iBook line. That'll be reserved for the Powerbook line. It's been too long now since the processor was a major point of difference between the iBook and Powerbook lines.

I doubt they would use Intel integrated graphics... it's weaak!! But I guess it could save on cost, size, and battery life.. still, I don't think Apple would use such a weak offering. It'll (hopefully) be either an ATI or Nvidia chipset.

[iHavenolife]

With all of these rumors that are going around about Intel by MWSF 2006, and if Apple does not deliver as expected people are going to start refering to the 3GZ promises made by Jobs. We still might have to wait till June. Wait and see. Hopefully we will get them at MWSF 2006.

[jayscheuerle]

How about Apple releases a new Mac Mini with the Intel chips, but sets it apart from the current ones by offering additional features not found in any other Mac? Like Front Row and a TV hookup (in and out), as well as DVR software? This would compel people to try the machines even if they already have a Mac, and would primarily be running efficient Apple apps..

[jiv3turkey748]

You wont be able to run a Windows app on an Intel-based Mac. (Unless the rumors about being able to run separate Windows environment on the same machine are true.)

it can run windows as wel as osx, but windows apps wont run in osx

[Lurch_Mojoff]

With all of these rumors that are going around about Intel by MWSF 2006, and if Apple does not deliver as expected people are going to start refering to the 3GZ promises made by Jobs. We still might have to wait till June. Wait and see. Hopefully we will get them at MWSF 2006.

People may refer to the 3GHz flop, but that would be outright wrong. All these rumors about Intel Macs at MWSF'06 are just that - rumors, and as far as Apple are concerned their deadline is WWDC'06, since the only official comment from them was Steve's "by this time next year" during the WWDC'05 keynote. However it is not impossible, on the contrary,it is very likely, that Apple will show some x86 goodness either at MWSF or shortly thereafter.

[jayscheuerle]

it can run windows as wel as osx, but windows apps wont run in osx

Not completely true. Apple won't keep you from installing Windows (according to Phil Schiller), but they won't be supplying drivers..

[wilburpan]

Doesn't really matter if its money out the door or not, its still money that Apple have to spend, I'm guessing the cost of them developing their own OS is similar to that of buying one off Microsoft (if not more expensive). By developing its own OS Apple has to spend millions that Dell doesn't, that expenditure has to be recouped somehow, the most obvious way is the premium they place on the price of Apple hardware.

I think this is perfectly fine also, clearly a Mac with no extra software does a hell of a lot more than a new Dell PC with Windows XP installed only.
It is a major difference if there is money out the door versus an internal cost. Suppose it costs Apple $10,000,000 this year for OS X development. If Apple sells 100,000 Macs, their cost for OS X is $100 per computer. If Apple sells 500,000 Macs, their cost per Mac is $20 each. If Apple sells 1,000,000 computers, the cost per computer is $10 each. With greater sales, the unit cost for OS X development decreases. The cost of developing OS X does not change with the number of computers sold.

On the other hand, Dell pays for each computer they sell. If the Windows tax is $50 per computer, then if Dell sells 100,000 computers, they spend $5,000,000. If Dell sells 1,000,000 computers, then they are out $50,000,000 in costs. For Dell, they have to pay more for the OS the more computers that they sell.

[reflex]

But here's the kicker: Apple's profit on an Intel iBook will automatically be higher than Dell's profit on a similarly spec'ed notebook because Apple doesn't have to pay Microsoft a licensing fee for Windows.

On the other hand, Apple does have to pay all the people who develop MacOS X ... Dell doesn't.

[Mord]

It is a major difference if there is money out the door versus an internal cost. Suppose it costs Apple $10,000,000 this year for OS X development. If Apple sells 100,000 Macs, their cost for OS X is $100 per computer. If Apple sells 500,000 Macs, their cost per Mac is $20 each. If Apple sells 1,000,000 computers, the cost per computer is $10 each. With greater sales, the unit cost for OS X development decreases. The cost of developing OS X does not change with the number of computers sold.

On the other hand, Dell pays for each computer they sell. If the Windows tax is $50 per computer, then if Dell sells 100,000 computers, they spend $5,000,000. If Dell sells 1,000,000 computers, then they are out $50,000,000 in costs. For Dell, they have to pay more for the OS the more computers that they sell.

apple spends approximately 100 million a year on OS X (their total R&D budget is 500 million approx 30% of that is software and 70% of that is the OS) and they sell about 5 million macs a year so thats 20 bucks per mac, thats not includeing stand alone copys of the OS which account for about 80 million bucks a year profit so takeing that into account thats about 5 bucks per mac.

[kenaustus]

It is interesting for me to try to consider just what Apple is capable of delivering in January.

On the software side:

OS X is fine - it's been on x86 for 5 years.

Apple apps (excluding AppleWorks) have all been written to go x86.

iLife 06 will (I think) fully replace AppleWorks, including a spreadsheet and database.

On the hardware side:

Apple probably put a lot of work into Mactels before Steve J announced the switch and have been working rather hard since then. We're talking about not only engineers, but also the designers and software folks. They would basically have everything done and be ready to go on everything but the PMs.

Yonah is scheduled to be released in a dual core version in January. Dell and HP (along with others) are going to start selling it on Day One. Apple is now joining this group and, I believe, will launch the Mac lines the chip is destined to work in at MWSF. We're talking the iMac and PB.

The single core Yonah is scheduled a few months after the dual, but Celeron-M will work fine in the iBook and Mac mini lines, giving both a boost without being "better" than the iMac or PB.

Basically, Apple is in a position to release all 4 lines at MWSF. The big question is: Do they want to wait until the single core Yonah is ready before putting it into the mini and iBook? Would the be able to switch over to the Yonah when it is delivered without reworking anything else in the iBook? Tough choice for Apple.

The other interesting question goes to the fact that every time Intel introduces a new chip the PC makes have it on the market the same day. Is Apple going to join that group? I think they will and it's going to change Apple's upgrading schedule a lot - but isn't that what everyone wants? Faster speed bumps.

The scary part is that, if Apple announces a Mactel at MWSF, the chips and all components are in production today. The production trial runs are underway, or will be before then end of the month and the first boat loads of Mactels would be leaving port before Christmas.

[jayscheuerle]

apple spends approximately 100 million a year on OS X (their total R&D budget is 500 million approx 30% of that is software and 70% of that is the OS) and they sell about 5 million macs a year so thats 20 bucks per mac, thats not includeing stand alone copys of the OS which account for about 80 million bucks a year profit so takeing that into account thats about 5 bucks per mac.

If 30% of their R&D is software and 70% is the OS, that doesn't leave much room for all their cool hardware, does it? :confused:

[shyataroo]

I'm still waiting to hear: "apple fools everyone, rumor sites with phony intel transition, Steve jobs Laughs his ass of as he introduces G5's based on the Cell design Quad-Cell G5's expected to ship by summer 2007"

[Mord]

no it's 70% of that 30%,oh and i made a mistake, OS X is 30% of that so it's like 7-8 bucks per mac, the R&D breaks down to 50% hardware 30% OS X 20% apps.

[Chacala_Nayarit]

I would love an Intel iBook! The price of a 12", 1GB DDR RAM, 100GB hard drive is way overpriced considering the hard drive speed of 4200rpm, 32MB of vram, older DDR SDRAM, the resolution, and G4 processor.

Bring on the Intel iBook! I will have enough for an iBook (even at current prices) by Jan. 2006.

[bbyrdhouse]

This will be perfect for the average user. Because most of the important functionality (internet, mail, ical, preview, etc) will be ported, the fact that there aren't that many third party software titles won't be a big deal. Besides, I'm sure a few apps such as office will debut along with the first intel macs.


Could it be that Apple also introduces an "Office like" app. A refinded Pages, updated Keynote and a spreadsheet App, and also it would be cool if they bought out Swift Publisher from BeLight Software.

[jayscheuerle]

I would love an Intel iBook! The price of a 12", 1GB DDR RAM, 100GB hard drive is way overpriced considering the hard drive speed of 4200rpm, 32MB of vram, older DDR SDRAM, the resolution, and G4 processor.

Bring on the Intel iBook! I will have enough for an iBook (even at current prices) by Jan. 2006.

What reason do you have for believing the specs other than the processor will change? (other than the incremental improvements normally made to overdue upgrades)

[generik]

Not that it might be possible, but has anyone else considered the possibility that Apple will actually sell the PPC models alongside their Intel lineup? With the PPC models being heavily discounted and all..

This might actually be a true show of commitment towards the universal binary system.

[efoto]

The single core Yonah is scheduled a few months after the dual, but Celeron-M will work fine in the iBook and Mac mini lines, giving both a boost without being "better" than the iMac or PB.

Something working on the side of Apple during this transition is that, in my belief, they don't need to worry about being better/faster than the current PPC offerings. The transition is going to take place but it isn't going to be a pickup-and-run type operation until all of the software goes fully x86 compatible. Even if the iBook had 'better' specs than the dual-proc PowerMac G5, I bet that G5 is going to be faster at doing work until there is no longer a need for Rosetta on any app and everything is x86 native.

Rosetta is stated at a 30% decrease in performance when running PPC apps on x86 hardware. With that fact, you could deduct that an iBook would have to be a minimum of 30% faster than the current offerings (perhaps more fair to compare it to *Books) to even 'compete' with them in productivity. The new products need to be at least 30% faster to overcome the performance lag Rosetta will cause, and even then that is assuming Rosetta works well and is usable. Try running PSCS2 with large files and mass-requirement filters and I bet you go running back to your PPC, even if it is 'only' a G4.

I expect great things from this transition, but certainly not right away. I think Apple expects great things as well, but they also realize it won't happen overnight, hence the move of the consumer lines first. Let the consumers figure it out so that when the people who compute on Macs for a living move over, it's all been worked out. You don't want to piss off/lose a $20,000+ per year customer simply because you decided to change processors. It makes sense to iron out the issues and then move the pros.

[Sunrunner]

Does anyone know if Apple is going to be actually using the "mactel" moniker? Or, is this just a phrase that has simply caught on with the computing public. Sounds catchy I think...

[jayscheuerle]

Does anyone know if Apple is going to be actually using the "mactel" moniker? Or, is this just a phrase that has simply caught on with the computing public. Sounds catchy I think...

Why would they advertise Intel's product via a name? Why tie themselves to Intel and away from AMD?

Being a Mac has NOTHING to do with the processor inside.

[iAFC]

Anybody knows when it starts to ship?

[jayscheuerle]

Anybody knows when it starts to ship?

The rumor seems to be shipping now..

[Mord]

yes, i work for apple and i'm just going to tell you, not think secret not macrumors just you in a forum post that they will ship on the 20th of january. :rolleyes:

[wilburpan]

apple spends approximately 100 million a year on OS X (their total R&D budget is 500 million approx 30% of that is software and 70% of that is the OS) and they sell about 5 million macs a year so thats 20 bucks per mac, thats not includeing stand alone copys of the OS which account for about 80 million bucks a year profit so takeing that into account thats about 5 bucks per mac.
Thanks for putting in some hard numbers! My numbers were just for purposes of illustration.

Again, the fact that Apple's cost for the operating system is internal means that the more Macs they sell, the lower the per unit cost is for each machine, so their profit margin actually increases with each additional Mac sold.

[Chacala_Nayarit]

What reason do you have for believing the specs other than the processor will change? (other than the incremental improvements normally made to overdue upgrades)

Why do you assume I believe the other specs will change? I never stated that. In late 2005 those specs seem lame, yet there is no evidence Apple will change them. Hell, there is no evidence for this whimsical rumor either. :)

[jayscheuerle]

Why do you assume I believe the other specs will change? I never stated that. In late 2005 those specs seem lame, yet there is no evidence Apple will change them. Hell, there is no evidence for this whimsical rumor either. :)

Ah, you're right! I just assumed your enthusiasm was because other elements would change.

I'm not sure of other reasons to buy one unless the processor makes a BIG leap in speed AND you use processor heavy applications. For most people out there these days, processor speed is largely irrelevant.

[Chacala_Nayarit]

Ah, you're right! I just assumed your enthusiasm was because other elements would change.

I'm not sure of other reasons to buy one unless the processor makes a BIG leap in speed AND you use processor heavy applications. For most people out there these days, processor speed is largely irrelevant.

So true, processor speed is irrelevant. Ever hear those stories of people who buy a dual G5 for iTunes, email, Office, Quickbooks, and Web browsing? My parents are those people. :rolleyes:

I took them to the Mac store last week and encouraged them to buy a Mini or iMac. They choose the Dual core 2.0GHz PM and 20" monitor. My stepdad (a computer illiterate truck driver), said the bigger the box, the better the product. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[generik]

yes, i work for apple and i'm just going to tell you, not think secret not macrumors just you in a forum post that they will ship on the 20th of january. :rolleyes:

You serious?!

*Guys... let's direct His Steveness to this post so someone can get his butt toasted for breaching his NDA*:rolleyes:

[macrumors12345]

Even with a 30% hit in emulated apps they would likely still be faster than the current PowerBook so every app would be a bit faster and native apps would be much faster.


People throw around this 30% performance hit like it's some law of nature. It's NOT. It varies A LOT by the type of application being run.

The performance hit for something like Office may be as little as 30%. The performance hit for an app that does a lot of computation or uses a lot of floating point is going to take a much bigger hit (e.g., Photoshop!). A recent ZDNet article demonstrated that running iTunes in Rosetta imposes a 70% performance hit on iTunes encoding.

For my research, I use a statistical application - Stata. I currently run with an iBook/1.33. I'd like to get an Intel based iBook at some point. But I will probably wait until Stata goes Universal, because even if the iBook x86 has a 1.8 Ghz+ P-M, it's not likely to be competitive with the iBook G4/1.33 when running that type of app (under Rosetta).

[jaduffy108]

What reason do you have for believing the specs other than the processor will change? (other than the incremental improvements normally made to overdue upgrades)

>>>Reason??? I can't think of one reasonable reason the other specs *would* or even *could* stay the same. The processor change...necessitates the other specs changing...dramatically so, if we're talking dual core yonah.


peace

[deputy_doofy]

So true, processor speed is irrelevant. Ever hear those stories of people who buy a dual G5 for iTunes, email, Office, Quickbooks, and Web browsing? My parents are those people. :rolleyes:

I took them to the Mac store last week and encouraged them to buy a Mini or iMac. They choose the Dual core 2.0GHz PM and 20" monitor. My stepdad (a computer illiterate truck driver), said the bigger the box, the better the product. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Ah, yes. I don't do a lot of processor intensive stuff. However, I have learned that with every computer I buy, I start to want to do something my computer can't quite handle at acceptable speeds. This is typically 6-12 months after I buy it.
So, I bought a dual-processor 2.3 G5 back in May with 2gb of RAM and it handles anything and everything I want to do (simultaneously). Lots of DVD->iPod ripping/compression. :D

[jayscheuerle]

>>>Reason??? I can't think of one reasonable reason the other specs *would* or even *could* stay the same. The processor change...necessitates the other specs changing...dramatically so, if we're talking dual core yonah.


peace

I guess I'm not computer literate enough to understand why a new processor would increase screen resolution or hard-drive speed, etc..

Can't wait to see these Superbooks™

[Mord]

:rolleyes: = dont take any of this seriously.... :rolleyes:

[efoto]

I guess I'm not computer literate enough to understand why a new processor would increase screen resolution or hard-drive speed, etc..

Can't wait to see these Superbooks™

Perhaps not independent hardware pieces such as those you mentioned, but I do think that switching the proc should have a direct effect on the system board, fsb which would increase the speed/performance of the RAM, etc etc. The system itself should get snappier (assuming no software bumps) simply because we are getting away from the god-awfully slow 200MHz fsb we have been damned with in the *Books.

Other than those directly related pieces, I fully agree that many other hardware specs will probably remain the same (screen, HD, battery, etc).

[jaduffy108]

I guess I'm not computer literate enough to understand why a new processor would increase screen resolution or hard-drive speed, etc..

Can't wait to see these Superbooks™


>>>Dude...check this out...
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=27770

Well, the processor/mobo, etc won't increase screen rez or HD speed...so?:confused:
See below...

This link lists the specs for the Yonah chips...delivery dates, etc. Your point is valid for someone who only uses Word...and surfs the net. But even for iMovie, etc...the new chips with up to dual core(!!) 2.1ghz...667 FSB...2MB cache...will be a HUGE performance boost over any of the current laptops from Apple. If the rumor turns out to be true...and i think it will...Intel PBs will be released very soon too. Now, *I'm* waiting for Merom based PBs...with optimized apps...early 2007. Rosetta will not meet *my* needs at ALL...not even a consideration.

peace

[efoto]

>>>Dude...check this out...
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=27770

Well, the processor/mobo, etc won't increase screen rez or HD speed...so?:confused:
See below...

This link lists the specs for the Yonah chips...delivery dates, etc. Your point is valid for someone who only uses Word...and surfs the net. But even for iMovie, etc...the new chips with up to dual core(!!) 2.1ghz...667 FSB...2MB cache...will be a HUGE performance boost over any of the current laptops from Apple. If the rumor turns out to be true...and i think it will...Intel PBs will be released very soon too. Now, *I'm* waiting for Merom based PBs...with optimized apps...early 2007. Rosetta will not meet *my* needs at ALL...not even a consideration.

peace

Is that 2MB l2 per core? or combined?

Sorry, I didn't care to have a look at the link :o

[toneloco2881]

Is that 2MB l2 per core? or combined?

Sorry, I didn't care to have a look at the link :o
2mb shared cache between the cores. One core can dynamically shut itself off allowing the full 2mb access to a single core. Pretty sweet!

[Peter Griffin]

I didn't read through this whole thread but I think it's a bit premature for intel iBooks to drop....either that or I'm trying to delude myself since I bought my iBook not too long ago :p . The updates for the most recent iBooks took a lifetime and I expected an equal if not longer wait time for the intel books to arrive. guess not. Just my 2 cents

[dontmatter]

No one can make up their mind on what product is going to come first can they? Oh well, it's only a matter of time until we know.

GO REX.

the interesting thing is-nobody can make up their mind as to what's coming out, but everybody seems to agree on when.

And I sure like that date...

[efoto]

2mb shared cache between the cores. One core can dynamically shut itself off allowing the full 2mb access to a single core. Pretty sweet!

So in applications that cannot take advantage of two processors (effective by cores as well) such as most games and common apps, the primary core will have full control of 2MB l2 cache, but when there are apps that utilize two processors (effective) then each will get 1MB l2 cache?

I wonder how the general operating of the system is divied between the two cores....

[toneloco2881]

So in applications that cannot take advantage of two processors (effective by cores as well) such as most games and common apps, the primary core will have full control of 2MB l2 cache, but when there are apps that utilize two processors (effective) then each will get 1MB l2 cache?

I wonder how the general operating of the system is divied between the two cores....
When running an app that necessitates the advantage of two cores, the full 2mb will be "shared" allowing both cores access. I don't believe it would be divided in half. This is a much more efficient method than having a seperate cache for each processor, like the intel Pentium-D, and recently introed quad powermac.

Likely, when running on battery power, one core would shut itself off, then allowing the remaining processor to the full 2mb cache. Perhaps apple will offer a preference setting in the energy saver panel, so you can control how the cores interact, and are utilized. I'm not sure if intel has coded the processors to utilize the "dual" cores only when plugged in, and if this can be overrode with software?

[Deltan]

I wonder if the iBooks will get an entirely new look to match their fancy new insides? :o

[Plymouthbreezer]

If this is the case, I might just get a iBook to hold me over until I get a Intel based desktop Mac sometime in 2007 (when the pro line is fully switched).

[Lacero]

I wonder if the iBooks will get an entirely new look to match their fancy new insides? :o
Yes! That's what I am looking forward to as well. Can't wait to see what Apple has in store for us. The iBook plastic and the PB aluminum are already perfect in my books.

[pizzach]

30% performance hit? You're a baby, get in my belly!

[corywoolf]

Powerbook, iMac, iBook and MacMini are all rumoured to come out in January. I dunno what to believe :rolleyes: I hope for powerbook though...

iBook's and Mac Mini's updated @ MWSF '06. Powerbook in March, and iMac in April. (Just based on what makes the most sense.)

:)

[aswitcher]

I wonder if the iBooks will get an entirely new look to match their fancy new insides? :o

Black or White is a good bet...lets hope they are tough and scratch resistant...

[ryan]

I'm interested in what the performance of these Intel machines will be like, given the huge gains that can be made - notable FSB.

- will they be comparable to existing PPC machines
- will apple cripple the performance
- will Java will be more usable - current Java performance on PPC is pretty dire.

According to someone (http://www.io.com/~bolsinga/archives/2005.html#e171) "in the know":

This is when I learned that the Intel builds didn't just compile and link. They actually ran, and they ra fast! I hadn't seen java run so fast on Mac OS X before, on any hardware.

and

But overall Mac OS X o Intel simply feels zippier.

[treblah]

People throw around this 30% performance hit like it's some law of nature. It's NOT. It varies A LOT by the type of application being run.

The performance hit for something like Office may be as little as 30%. The performance hit for an app that does a lot of computation or uses a lot of floating point is going to take a much bigger hit (e.g., Photoshop!). A recent ZDNet article demonstrated that running iTunes in Rosetta imposes a 70% performance hit on iTunes encoding.

Whoa, Whoa, Whoa!

ZDNET was running a hacked version of OS X on a Toshiba laptop with a 1.2GHz Pentium M. It is unfair to use that 'review' to guess how well Rosetta might work.