Analysys Expect Intel Macs in January [Archive]

MacRumors

Dec 13, 2005, 01:07 PM

Lacero

Dec 13, 2005, 01:09 PM

rdowns

Dec 13, 2005, 01:10 PM

YES! :D I'm hoping so.

Post whore!:D Posts a one line response to be first and then goes back to edit it.

Lots of Intel rumors, the real question is which line get them.

dornoforpyros

Dec 13, 2005, 01:10 PM

Man I wish I could have a job as an analist so I could just repeat other people's research.

Tommyg117

Dec 13, 2005, 01:11 PM

That would be pretty cool! iMac or iBook? I wish it was a powerbook but I doubt it.

sjo

Dec 13, 2005, 01:18 PM

Ok, that's that then. No hope for Intel Macs in January :(

I mean when did the analysts got something right? Monkeys throwing darts at stock listings have higher accuracy in their predictions :rolleyes:

Diatribe

Dec 13, 2005, 01:19 PM

If Rosetta has gotten that good that it doesn't matter that much whether it runs natively or not that might be more than probable.

hvfsl

Dec 13, 2005, 01:19 PM

Lacero

Dec 13, 2005, 01:22 PM

Lots of Intel rumors, the real question is which line get them.
In the professional space, the PowerBook line is in dire need of an update. I see this getting the Yonahs before the iBook line. Apple's going to suck dry all the potential of PPC for as long as they can. The iBook line is the perfect suckage machine.

In the consumer space, we'll see the mac minis getting the low-power Intel chips, plus the speed needed to decode (or encode) HD H.264 on the fly. Cooler chip also means less fan noise; a must if Apple wants its products at home in the livingroom.

Superdrive

Dec 13, 2005, 01:22 PM

12in Powerbook G4 for sale!

These industry sources could also be the ones that predicted this Intel switch back in June. There are a lot of rumbles regarding this SF Circus, and I am ready to spend (as soon as I unload my G4).

Yvan256

Dec 13, 2005, 01:24 PM

Although there is one bit of evidence that Apple has some highend laptops coming because ATI is apparently holding off announcing the X1800M (it's highend mobile graphics chip) until certain partners announce laptops with the chip in.

Wait a minute... "Apple" and "highend graphics chip" usually doesn't go in the same sentence. ;)

pgwalsh

Dec 13, 2005, 01:31 PM

Wait a minute... "Apple" and "highend graphics chip" usually doesn't go in the same sentence. ;)They do better with graphics chips in laptops than most companies.

On another note, how does one know ATI is waiting for anyone. Does someone have a link to a statement that verifies this rumor?

Porchland

Dec 13, 2005, 01:33 PM

Mactels! iLife! New TV shows! Apple-branded iPod accessories! Maybe even The Beatles!

*rapidly breathing into brown paper sack*

fartheststar

Dec 13, 2005, 01:34 PM

Wait a minute... "Apple" and "highend graphics chip" usually doesn't go in the same sentence. ;)

Hopefully they will once the switch happens! :D

nagromme

Dec 13, 2005, 01:37 PM

I don't consider these reports strong evidence, but I DO think it's LIKELY to be soon (announced at least, maybe not shipping right away).

And the evidence for it NOT being soon seems much weaker.

But which model(s) will be first? Could be any of the three G4 lines--but I think the other G4 Macs will follow within a month or two, so I'll try not to be TOO disappointed if the PowerBook I want doesn't show up January 10.

And I think some of the current G4 models will be STILL be sold, alongside the new ones, so people can choose what they want--based on how long-term their needs are, and what apps they demand top speed from. (I use Photoshop all the time, but not for huge images--so I don't demand top speed from it. And I want the next generation platform, so I'm willing to settle for months of Rosetta for some things.)

Apple has sold the old model alongside the new one several times since Jobs' return, and it would help ease this transition just like it has in the past (OS 9 to X, G4 to G5, etc.).

shadowmoses

Dec 13, 2005, 01:38 PM

Mactels! iLife! New TV shows! Apple-branded iPod accessories! Maybe even The Beatles!

*rapidly breathing into brown paper sack*

I think you've nailed it, as for which mactels we will see in january as that is the question, it's gonna be the notebooks and possibly mac mini's we see move to intel first with the new powerbook's sporting built in iSight a la iMac....

Shadow

numediaman

Dec 13, 2005, 01:40 PM

Man I wish I could have a job as an analist so I could just repeat other people's research.

I thought this was a family-friendly site.

Peace

Dec 13, 2005, 01:43 PM

Mactels! iLife! New TV shows! Apple-branded iPod accessories! Maybe even The Beatles!

*rapidly breathing into brown paper sack*

Don't know if it means anything but the John Lennon Bus is going to be at Macworld for the first time this year.
And if you try to download the floorplan that was dated 11/29 it says :The page you are looking for might have been removed,
had it's name changed, or is temporarily unavailable.

alec

Dec 13, 2005, 01:43 PM

haha, another 3 to 4 weeks of guessing please! Though I do love the guessing, it keeps me entertained until I actually learn the truth

hvfsl

Dec 13, 2005, 01:44 PM

They do better with graphics chips in laptops than most companies.

On another note, how does one know ATI is waiting for anyone. Does someone have a link to a statement that verifies this rumor?
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=28311

'It's been up and running for a few weeks now, but ATI is waiting for its partners to announce the design before it starts talking about it.'

greenstork

Dec 13, 2005, 01:45 PM

Is there some new chip supplier? This is the first I've heard of it :p

strange days

Dec 13, 2005, 01:46 PM

i'm dancing a charm for double-core Yonah Mac Minis...

...care to join me ? :D

Randall

Dec 13, 2005, 01:46 PM

Well we all know they are going to release something, we just don't know what that is.

I am hoping for the PowerBooks (probably like most here), but I am expecting the Mac mini.

Although there is one bit of evidence that Apple has some highend laptops coming because ATI is apparently holding off announcing the X1800M (it's highend mobile graphics chip) until certain partners announce laptops with the chip in.

Intel dual core Powerbook with ATI X1800M PCIe graphics. *drooling* Finaly a real power machine. That "new" Powerbook release last month with inhanced display resolution was just foreplay to get you in the mood. x86 rules you!!

BlueRevolution

Dec 13, 2005, 01:54 PM

i'm dancing a charm for double-core Yonah Mac Minis...

...care to join me ? :D

no thanks, might jinx the prospects of a Yonah Powerbook with 20 hour battery life. you have fun though.

jcontonio

Dec 13, 2005, 01:56 PM

Man I wish I could have a job as an analist so I could just repeat other people's research.

Or you could just work for macrumors.com and repeat everything appleinsider or thinksecret says. That's all this site is anyway.

CMillerERAU

Dec 13, 2005, 01:58 PM

Wow, what would a user sent forward in time from a year ago have to say about this thread. "Intel? INTEL?!" *faints*

ewinemiller

Dec 13, 2005, 02:10 PM

Although there is one bit of evidence that Apple has some highend laptops coming because ATI is apparently holding off announcing the X1800M (it's highend mobile graphics chip) until certain partners announce laptops with the chip in.

Okay, that's probably not Apple, it's probably Dell with the XPS line, Alienware, etc. Those top of the line mobile video cards tend to be large, not something you stuff into a 1" power book.

rdowns

Dec 13, 2005, 02:13 PM

Or you could just work for macrumors.com and repeat everything appleinsider or thinksecret says. That's all this site is anyway.

I take it we shouldn't count on you to contribute to the site.:rolleyes:

nagromme

Dec 13, 2005, 02:15 PM

Or you could just work for macrumors.com and repeat everything appleinsider or thinksecret says. That's all this site is anyway.
I'll have to defend MR on this :) MR doesn't seem to break stories from their own sources as often as they once did (they broke the 12" and 17" PowerBook scoop first I think) but they DO offer more than just pointing you to other rumor sites.

1. They have been very good at judging HOW seriously to take those reports. If they ignore a rumor or call it unlikely, then it's probably not true. If they pass it on "as is" then take it for what it's worth. But when they state something as likely or expected--meaning THEY call it likely, not the other rumor site--that's a very strong sign. MR doesn't often state something with that confidence, but they seem to know when it's justified. I think they DO have their own sources, even if they've been used more for confirmation lately (just my impression).

2. The rest of the site functionality: active discussion forums, guides, etc.

3. Live event coverage.

4. Keeping on top of other rumor sites (and more than just the "top few") so you don't have to IS a nice thing as well.

Anyway, back on/T...

Lord Blackadder

Dec 13, 2005, 02:17 PM

Photorun

Dec 13, 2005, 02:27 PM

Sooo much unknown though about performance hit for PPC apps through Rosetta makes my head spin and/or want to vomit in the short term. Then again, my G5 2.0 DP still suits me fine. Actually releasing the consumer products first is a really good strategy from the point of view consumer products is for, well, consumers! iLife and other Apple apps consumers like (including strangely potentially Microshaft Orface is being created in a dual binary as we speak but I didn't say anything) so from a just average home user P.O.V. this is a great thing.

However from a pro user who needs Adobe and Macromedia (while they're still thankfully not the same company) the whole Rosetta/non PPC hit would be too much without recoded pro apps so the big gun PowerMacs being aways off is a good thing, and even Powerbooks though there are clearly a lot of whiny Powerbook fanboys here (full of unfounded vitriol).

If they release something decent and well priced consider me an early adopter!

Porchland

Dec 13, 2005, 02:35 PM

Don't know if it means anything but the John Lennon Bus is going to be at Macworld for the first time this year.
And if you try to download the floorplan that was dated 11/29 it says :The page you are looking for might have been removed,
had it's name changed, or is temporarily unavailable.

I saw the same mention in the Macworld press release. My reference to The Beatles is not so much a rumor as me wondering out loud. But if Macworld is going to be all about music, it makes perfect sense.

I guess we'll know if we see an announcement postcard in all-white (or with four Steves walking across the street).

Porchland

Dec 13, 2005, 02:37 PM

Wow, what would a user sent forward in time from a year ago have to say about this thread. "Intel? INTEL?!" *faints*

Or from ten years ago. "OJ killed his wife, and Michael's nose fell off! *faints*

otter-boy

Dec 13, 2005, 02:41 PM

However from a pro user who needs Adobe and Macromedia (while they're still thankfully not the same company) . . .

Sorry to burst your bubble:
"SAN JOSE, Calif. - Dec. 5, 2005 - Adobe Systems Incorporated (Nasdaq:ADBE) today announced the completion of its acquisition of Macromedia, Inc. The transaction was finalized on Saturday, Dec. 3, 2005. . . ." http://www.adobe.com/aboutadobe/pressroom/pressreleases/200512/120505AdobeAcquiresMacromedia.html

Let's hope they get their combined strategy worked out quickly and get their suites native for OS X86 as soon as possible.

BenRoethig

Dec 13, 2005, 02:47 PM

Okay, that's probably not Apple, it's probably Dell with the XPS line, Alienware, etc. Those top of the line mobile video cards tend to be large, not something you stuff into a 1" power book.

The smallest notebook they can get something like that into is the 1.5" Dell XPS M170. Apple can do a lot of cool things, but they're still bound by the laws of physics. MR1600 or GFG7600 is the best video card you'll see coming out of Apple.

Randall

Dec 13, 2005, 02:48 PM

Apple can't argue with perfection. Thus they adopted the x86 architechure for all their computing needs. :p PPC just couldn't "git-r-done". It had to happen, and was one of the reasons that every version of OS X to date had an x86 version in parallel development (never released to the general public). Apple knew PPC would fall on it's face, and to their credit they were able to milk the PPC architecture for all that its worth.

I am very excited that Apple finally decided to take the plunge into x86. Their mobile computing lines are in desperate need of a serious upgrade to compete well in the mobile market. The x86 architecture has a chance for Apple to lower production costs (x86 is way cheaper for Intel to produce then PPC is for IBM), and help Apple take back a serious chunk of the mobile market share.

twoodcc

Dec 13, 2005, 02:50 PM

looking forward to an intel mac mini dual-core

Randall

Dec 13, 2005, 02:52 PM

The smallest notebook they can get something like that into is the 1.5" Dell XPS M170. Apple can do a lot of cool things, but they're still bound by the laws of physics. MR1600 or GFG7600 is the best video card you'll see coming out of Apple.
Honestly that should suffice for mobile graphics for the time being. You never see state-of-the-art GPUs from Apple's Powerbooks, they're usually a generation behind or a knotch below top end. That said, they still always have excellent graphics capibilities.

Randall

Dec 13, 2005, 02:54 PM

Sorry to burst your bubble:
"SAN JOSE, Calif. - Dec. 5, 2005 - Adobe Systems Incorporated (Nasdaq:ADBE) today announced the completion of its acquisition of Macromedia, Inc. The transaction was finalized on Saturday, Dec. 3, 2005. . . ." http://www.adobe.com/aboutadobe/pressroom/pressreleases/200512/120505AdobeAcquiresMacromedia.html

Let's hope they get their combined strategy worked out quickly and get their suites native for OS X86 as soon as possible.

Shouldn't be that hard to port to x86, they'll just re-compile the Windows version with the -osx flag. lol j/k.

lifeboy001

Dec 13, 2005, 02:57 PM

Or you could just work for macrumors.com and repeat everything appleinsider or thinksecret says. That's all this site is anyway.

Well, perhaps I should buy a ZenVision M- it does the same thing as a iPod Video, so there must be no difference....

Get over it, if you prefer TS, stay there....this is a much more entertaining forum for many, and it serves a major portion of the rumor market. I'll never understand why somebody would post a comment a forum they are denouncing....it's like a child who puts the broccoli in his mouth just to make a show of spitting it out....

Randall

Dec 13, 2005, 03:00 PM

Well, perhaps I should buy a ZenVision M- it does the same thing as a iPod Video, so there must be no difference....

Get over it, if you prefer TS, stay there....this is a much more entertaining forum for many, and it serves a major portion of the rumor market. I'll never understand why somebody would post a comment a forum they are denouncing....it's like a child who puts the broccoli in his mouth just to make a show of spitting it out.... He's clearly trying to start a flamewar, and you're taking the bait!

jcontonio

Dec 13, 2005, 03:05 PM

He's clearly trying to start a flamewar, and you're taking the bait!

I'm actually just angry that I used to visit this site everyday, but now when I visit it it's just re-posted articles of stuff I've read on other sites. Maybe I go to them first because alphabetically they're on my bookmark list first, who knows...but every time my RSS feed "dings" and I see AppleInsider updated, 10 minutes later macrumors updates.

I want original content and original sources. Reading the same thing 2 or 3 times sucks.

Randall

Dec 13, 2005, 03:10 PM

I'm actually just angry that I used to visit this site everyday, but now when I visit it it's just re-posted articles of stuff I've read on other sites. Maybe I go to them first because alphabetically they're on my bookmark list first, who knows...but every time my RSS feed "dings" and I see AppleInsider updated, 10 minutes later macrumors updates.

I want original content and original sources. Reading the same thing 2 or 3 times sucks.
all the Apple rumor sites are gonna post the same rumors at realitively the same time. According to your experiences it seems that MacRumors.com is a little bit slower then some of the other sites. I don't see the reason for getting upset about this. A rumor is a rumor. You take it with a grain of salt. IF you don't want to read repeat news, then I suggest just bookmarking your favorite news source. No sense on flaming the sites you dislike IMO.

minimax

Dec 13, 2005, 03:11 PM

The x86 architecture has a chance for Apple to lower production costs (x86 is way cheaper for Intel to produce then PPC is for IBM), and help Apple take back a serious chunk of the mobile market share.

Seriously, where do people get their info from. *rubs crystal bowl*

iHavenolife

Dec 13, 2005, 03:18 PM

They are smart ones. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

DWKlink

Dec 13, 2005, 03:20 PM

Seriously, where do people get their info from. *rubs crystal bowl*

I remember reading an article that broke down the costs of making a Freescale G4 mac notebook and an "Intel" based mac on speculation... and the Intels were quite a bit more expensive. The article went on to speculate that in order to keep notebooks competetive, Apple may have to CUT features.

Again, he was just talking estimates and no one knows exactly how cheap apple is getting their parts from intel, but you have to remember a lot of manufacterers use stock intel parts (mobos, etc) - apple could conceivably be using a lot of customs parts still, these parts will cost more than stock intel parts.

People seem to be forgetting that the parts apple is replacing are G4 parts, not IBM G5s. These parts are old and very cheap to produce...

Randall

Dec 13, 2005, 03:27 PM

I remember reading an article that broke down the costs of making a Freescale G4 mac notebook and an "Intel" based mac on speculation... and the Intels were quite a bit more expensive. The article went on to speculate that in order to keep notebooks competetive, Apple may have to CUT features.

Again, he was just talking estimates and no one knows exactly how cheap apple is getting their parts from intel, but you have to remember a lot of manufacterers use stock intel parts (mobos, etc) - apple could conceivably be using a lot of customs parts still, these parts will cost more than stock intel parts.

People seem to be forgetting that the parts apple is replacing are G4 parts, not IBM G5s. These parts are old and very cheap to produce...
Yes obviously the G4's are dirt cheap at this point in time, so in this respect the Intel Yonah's will be more expensive. I should look for numbers before I back up my claim. Even if the mobo is custom designed, it shouldn't be any more expensive then their previous PPC G4 custom designed mobo.

p0intblank

Dec 13, 2005, 03:34 PM

Very nice! :D The more rumors, the better! I really think it's going to happen... January can't come soon enough! :p

DWKlink

Dec 13, 2005, 03:40 PM

Yes obviously the G4's are dirt cheap at this point in time, so in this respect the Intel Yonah's will be more expensive. I should look for numbers before I back up my claim. Even if the mobo is custom designed, it shouldn't be any more expensive then their previous PPC G4 custom designed mobo.

Thats my point exactly. So if all apple does, hypothetically of course, is replace just the processor, the notebooks are ALREADY costing them more to make. Not even mentioning the possibility of faster GRFX card, faster RAM, bigger HD...

I think people need to temper their expectations a bit. I don't think its possible for Apple to release a CHEAPER notebook based around Yonah that also has the latest GRFX, memory and all the other goodies people are speculating without significantly raising the price of the machine.

Randall

Dec 13, 2005, 03:45 PM

Thats my point exactly. So if all apple does, hypothetically of course, is replace just the processor, the notebooks are ALREADY costing them more to make. Not even mentioning the possibility of faster GRFX card, faster RAM, bigger HD...

I think people need to temper their expectations a bit. I don't think its possible for Apple to release a CHEAPER notebook based around Yonah that also has the latest GRFX, memory and all the other goodies people are speculating without significantly raising the price of the machine.

Well we'll see. It's still all speculation at this point. I'm sure we'll be discussing it in a more serious fasion after MWSF 2006. Very exciting indeed. The possibility of having a Powerbook with a 667MHz front side bus as opposed to the 167MHz system bus it currently boasts is enough to get anyone excited. Plus dual core!! This has been a long time coming for Powerbook fans. Even if it doesn't come out in January, we'll have an Intel Powerbook sometime in 2006, which is very exciting!

DavidLeblond

Dec 13, 2005, 03:48 PM

Or you could just work for macrumors.com and repeat everything appleinsider or thinksecret says. That's all this site is anyway.

So why visit appleinsider and thinksecret if you can get all your rumors on one site? ;)

faintember

Dec 13, 2005, 03:51 PM

...and even Powerbooks though there are clearly a lot of whiny Powerbook fanboys here (full of unfounded vitriol).What? For some of us, a dual G5 tower isn't portable enough, and the PB as it is now is pathetic compared to the other apple products. We (that is, us whiny PB fanboys) need the speed upgrade more than any other of apple's lines. Seems like there is at least one person on here that can not use smilies to indicate sarcasm (i hope you fall into this category) or a person that is posting unfounded rubbish in order to incite vitriol.

DWKlink

Dec 13, 2005, 03:55 PM

Randall

Dec 13, 2005, 04:05 PM

Sorry to be a Debbie downer... my girlfriend is always yelling at me for doing that. I just think people may be expecting way too much... and even Jobs the great might not be able to deliver on what they're expecting.

And then the day after the announcement all these people will be hating apple because they didn't meet some unatainable expectation.I already hate them for not switching to Intel sooner. :p

Anandtech's tests show "a 2.0GHz Yonah under 100 per cent load consumes less power than an Athlon 64 X2 3800+ at idle", which bodes well for the Yonah-based laptops expected to be announced by a variety of vendors in Q1 2006.

Intel is looking sweeter by the second. The new Powerbooks are gonna rock the extra long battery life.

AidenShaw

Dec 13, 2005, 04:10 PM

Okay, that's probably not Apple, it's probably Dell with the XPS line, Alienware, etc. Those top of the line mobile video cards tend to be large, not something you stuff into a 1" power book.
One more reason for Apple to branch out "PowerBook Pro" line - something to compete with the high end Windows portable workstations.

It would be thicker, heavier, and the battery life would suffer - but they'd sell a ton of them to musicians for on-stage work, video production in the field, digital photographers, and other people who put a higher premium on power than absolute portability.

Lacero

Dec 13, 2005, 04:12 PM

Intel is looking sweeter by the second. The new Powerbooks are gonna rock the extra long battery life.
Along with cooler chips, I'd like to see Apple shrink the motherboard on the laptops, use 1.5" hard drives (+80 GBs) and with the space savings, make the battery 50%-70% larger. Give us 10-12 hour battery life, dammit! :D

Here's to the Crazy Ones http://forums.macrumors.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=35452 (http://www.uriah.com/apple-qt/movies/think-different.mov)

corywoolf

Dec 13, 2005, 04:13 PM

in other news, there's no news...

YEA!!!

:cool:

dongmin

Dec 13, 2005, 04:20 PM

boombashi

Dec 13, 2005, 04:28 PM

in other news, there's no news...

YEA!!!

:cool:

I agree, I keep hoping for some 'Real' info on MacWorld leaks, and all the rumor sites keep posting the same story with a with a very slight spin. Pretty soon everyone will be quoting themselves if the same story keeps getting repeated daily...Oh yeah, BTW All the "Analysts" get their info from MC, TS, and AI, so they are already quoting themselves, they just don't know it. I really hope what I said isn't true. Damn, I need a new PowerBook! Rumors Be True!

Randall

Dec 13, 2005, 04:31 PM

Who here thinks that Apple with come out with Intel Powerbooks in January? :D

dernhelm

Dec 13, 2005, 04:31 PM

Sadly, this is just the analysts responding to the smoke the rumor sites are throwing up, and saying "where there's smoke, there's fire!".

This is NOT new information.

MarcelV

Dec 13, 2005, 04:32 PM

Apple knew PPC would fall on it's face, and to their credit they were able to milk the PPC architecture for all that its worth.

And where do you base this on? Maybe it was as simple as Apple was not ready. The only way this could be done in a way it wouldn't alienate the current mac owners was with a technology like Rosetta. And the hardware/software wasn't ready yet. As in programs would run much too slow for it to be acceptable. With current hardware, and Rosetta supporting even AltiVec, the time is ready. It just couldn't be done before. Has nothing to do with Apple milking the PPC. Apple is a for-profit company. Everything is done to guarantee a maximum profit. Nothing will be done that will risk that. I.e. just driven by economics. Sometimes, some people just forget that.

dernhelm

Dec 13, 2005, 04:34 PM

Who here thinks that Apple with come out with Intel Powerbooks in January? :D

I do, but I secretly hope they will not. That's partly because I have a current PB and I hate to see it get outmoded too soon. But it is also partly because I think the Yonah chip could use a few months of shaking out before Apple ships these babies.

They may ship in Jan, but wish they held out until March...

:eek:

dernhelm

Dec 13, 2005, 04:37 PM

One more reason for Apple to branch out "PowerBook Pro" line - something to compete with the high end Windows portable workstations.

It would be thicker, heavier, and the battery life would suffer - but they'd sell a ton of them to musicians for on-stage work, video production in the field, digital photographers, and other people who put a higher premium on power than absolute portability.

Won't happen. Apple will not ship anything larger than 1.1" thick as a Powerbook or iBook. They are not interested in competing against the 10lb. desktop replacement machines.

modernpixel

Dec 13, 2005, 04:37 PM

As Jobs himself spelled out - the product pipeline is to introduce the Intels into consumer products first and then ease into pro products.

As someone else mentioned, running pro apps on Rosseta isn't going to appeal to anyone. On the other hand, all of Apple's consumer apps are already ported to X86 and will run natively - so the machines will be ready to go for the average Joe.

Why speed up the release? To capitalize on iPod mayhem and glory. It won't last forever - Apple has incredible mind-share right now. They need to get slightly less expensive boxes out there to further the halo-effect while they can.

Although I doubt Apple will do this, if they really wanted to further the halo effect, they'd build in flawless integrated dual-boot and let people run Windows and OS X together. Think user-switching style flipping between systems. The cube spins, and you're on a Window's machine. That would be the ultimate Mac Switcher experience, and would suddenly make the Mac platform a lot more appealing for the average end-user. You can practically hear them, "Cheap, made by the iPod people, and compatible with all my Windows stuff? Sign me up!!!"

BlizzardBomb

Dec 13, 2005, 04:44 PM

Hmmm... how oddly familiar. As if I haven't heard this story a gazillion times. Well I hope they completely refresh anything with a G4 in January but I suppose that's wishful thinking :p

tristan

Dec 13, 2005, 04:46 PM

Specs please? Guess it's too early.

Randall

Dec 13, 2005, 04:48 PM

And where do you base this on? Maybe it was as simple as Apple was not ready. The only way this could be done in a way it wouldn't alienate the current mac owners was with a technology like Rosetta. And the hardware/software wasn't ready yet. As in programs would run much too slow for it to be acceptable. With current hardware, and Rosetta supporting even AltiVec, the time is ready. It just couldn't be done before. Has nothing to do with Apple milking the PPC. Apple is a for-profit company. Everything is done to guarantee a maximum profit. Nothing will be done that will risk that. I.e. just driven by economics. Sometimes, some people just forget that. Milking the PPC for all it's worth matches Apples M.O. wouldn't you agree? ;) Anyway, maybe you're right about Apple not being ready before PPC fell on it's face. Either way, Apple had this idea to switch to x86 in the back of their minds for a while now. That is evident from what Jobs said about them developing an x86 version of OS X side by side the PPC version. At the very least they were keeping their options open, which is just smart. Rosetta is not as impressive as Apple would have you think. PearPC writes sort of a reverse Rosetta if you will, allowing x86 to emulate PPC.

I do, but I secretly hope they will not. That's partly because I have a current PB and I hate to see it get outmoded too soon. But it is also partly because I think the Yonah chip could use a few months of shaking out before Apple ships these babies.

They may ship in Jan, but wish they held out until March...

:eek:

Either way, you won't be outdated. Apple has made clear the transition to intel will be smooth, and PPC will be supported for a long time to come. Apple has said that they will start the switch with consumer products and then eventually the professional line. IMO though, the Powerbook line, and to a lesser extent ibook, are in dire need of a serious hardware upgrade. It has been far too long, and G4 is an antique at this point.

As far as the Yonah chip needing a few months of shaking out before it's ready... This is not the case. Yonah has been tested since April of this year, and it's ready to unload a fistfull of dual core beatdowns to all the pathetic solo core laptops out there. While using up to 40% less battery then it's single core ancestors.

On another note, does anybody else find it ironic that the company that tells you to "switch" has in fact decided to switch back to x86 architecture? I know it's not the same because it's still a Mac, but does anybody else think that it's funny as hell? Especially after reading all of the Apple marketing bs years ago about PPC G4 kicking Intel's butt.

restless~native

Dec 13, 2005, 04:54 PM

I thought this was a family-friendly site.

numediaman........LOL!

I would never want to be an ANALIST, maybe an ANALYST but I'll stay away from anything resembling an anus.

GregA

Dec 13, 2005, 05:11 PM

I think Apple has really been burning the midnight oil to get an Intel laptop out at MWSF - and it is made all the more plausible by the fact that, unlike with the stillborn G5 laptop, the Intel PowerBooks/iBooks are built on an already established platform.

I wonder if the new portables will have used an off-the shelf motherboard with some modifications or if they will have designed their own from scratch?That's an interesting question. We keep hearing that Intel wants to break from the past, that the existing BIOS still requires old chips (like for serial and parallel ports, floppy drives, the old keyboard connectors), and that their new EFI will allow for more efficient motherboards with faster sleep and startup features etc. MS says Vista will support EFI when it ships.

I'm hoping Apple has written (or customised) its own EFI so that we step straight into the x86 future (and so all the OpenFirmware strengths are ported) - so, can apple use "off the shelf" motherboards? I'm assuming XP can't run on them - so our motherboard could be the "new Intel standard" which nobody else uses at all till Vista. If that's true, Intel would probably be wanting to show how great the new standard is and would be working closely with Apple - but it won't be the same motherboard others use.

ZorPrime

Dec 13, 2005, 05:12 PM

Man I wish I could have a job as an analist so I could just repeat other people's research.

Did you mean Analyst *heh heh* ;)

Edit: oops, beat me to it. :o

Things are starting to look up for MWSF... particularly after the lack luster summer and Paris. I do wonder how much hardware will actually be announced... I have a feeling it will be iPod/iTunes intensive. Especially since MTV and Microsoft have announced their broadening their venture into the online music download world...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051213/ap_on_hi_te/mtv_microsoft_music;_ylt=AgXpnOci24que45Zcit1gwqs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3cjE0b2MwBHNlYwM3Mzg-

beatle888

Dec 13, 2005, 05:13 PM

all the Apple rumor sites are gonna post the same rumors at realitively the same time. According to your experiences it seems that MacRumors.com is a little bit slower then some of the other sites. I don't see the reason for getting upset about this. A rumor is a rumor. You take it with a grain of salt. IF you don't want to read repeat news, then I suggest just bookmarking your favorite news source. No sense on flaming the sites you dislike IMO.

agreed. plus macrumors has all the rumors anyway...so why go anywhere else? this is actually the only rumors site i visit. no list of bookmarks, no re-reading rumors. by the way, how far into a rumor does one have to read before they realize they've already read it :D. hardly seems like something to compain about. still, i could be wrong.

GregA

Dec 13, 2005, 05:18 PM

looking forward to an intel mac mini dual-core
I'm worried about the reports of high cost on the Yonahs. Apple has been working hard to get the h264 decoding happening on the graphics chips (and perhaps even the encoding too!), so I'd be happy to see a low-end Yonah MacMini with a h264 enhanced graphics chip to do the hard video stuff.

As for laptops - I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that a yonah dual-core 1.67Ghz will run PPC apps (via Rosetta) faster than a G4 single-core 1.67Ghz. (The reports on iTunes emulated speed and other general chip information seem to support that.) If true, Apple releasing Powerbooks first makes sense - from a chip cost perspective and a speed perspective. "Buy a yonah powerbook and see a slight increase in your speed, which will get even better with native apps". If the yonah's are slower (during Rosetta emulation - especially with altivec apps) then the iBook may make more sense (though the higher cost of Yonah chips will be a factor).

It's quite a challenge Apple has.

Platform

Dec 13, 2005, 05:19 PM

Mac min dual core :D

This just gets better and better.....but where are the fake pics and specs from Thinksecret :p :confused:

Randall

Dec 13, 2005, 05:26 PM

That's an interesting question. We keep hearing that Intel wants to break from the past, that the existing BIOS still requires old chips (like for serial and parallel ports, floppy drives, the old keyboard connectors), and that their new EFI will allow for more efficient motherboards with faster sleep and startup features etc. MS says Vista will support EFI when it ships.

I'm hoping Apple has written (or customised) its own EFI so that we step straight into the x86 future (and so all the OpenFirmware strengths are ported) - so, can apple use "off the shelf" motherboards? I'm assuming XP can't run on them - so our motherboard could be the "new Intel standard" which nobody else uses at all till Vista. If that's true, Intel would probably be wanting to show how great the new standard is and would be working closely with Apple - but it won't be the same motherboard others use.

I'm not sure what the point is of dual booting with windows, besides the ability to run countless pieces of software, most of which have an OS X answer to them, at least a lot of the common software titles do. You're gonna have to find a hacked version of windows drivers for your mac only hardware parts anyway. Not that it can't be done, because I'm sure it would be far easier then getting OS X x86 to run on your windows machine. There are hundreds of hardware drivers for windows, a few of witch will probably be compatible with some of the Mac x86 hardware right off the bat.

Randall

Dec 13, 2005, 05:28 PM

Mac min dual core :D

This just gets better and better.....but where are the fake pics and specs from Thinksecret :p :confused:
Speaking of fake pics, did anybody see the fake pic of Steve Jobs at the MWSF in front of a photoshoped slide that read "Intel 12 years away" instead of "12 months away". I almost died laughing. I wish I had a link to that pic. So great. :p

Randall

Dec 13, 2005, 05:31 PM

I'm worried about the reports of high cost on the Yonahs. Apple has been working hard to get the h264 decoding happening on the graphics chips (and perhaps even the encoding too!), so I'd be happy to see a low-end Yonah MacMini with a h264 enhanced graphics chip to do the hard video stuff.

As for laptops - I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that a yonah dual-core 1.67Ghz will run PPC apps (via Rosetta) faster than a G4 single-core 1.67Ghz. (The reports on iTunes emulated speed and other general chip information seem to support that.) If true, Apple releasing Powerbooks first makes sense - from a chip cost perspective and a speed perspective. "Buy a yonah powerbook and see a slight increase in your speed, which will get even better with native apps". If the yonah's are slower (during Rosetta emulation - especially with altivec apps) then the iBook may make more sense (though the higher cost of Yonah chips will be a factor).

It's quite a challenge Apple has.

Just use one of your dual cores to encode your H.264 content with x264. :p Seriously I encode x264 with my Pentium III 866 MHz machine. It only takes a few weeks for a dual pass. LOL ;)

digitalbiker

Dec 13, 2005, 05:35 PM

Especially after reading all of the Apple marketing bs years ago about PPC G4 kicking Intel's butt.

You don't know what you are talking about. When the PPC G4 chip came out 5+ years ago, it was an all around better chip than anything Intel had to offer. The original Ti 500 Mhz G4 PB WAS THE laptop to be had. Unique and powerful in terms of size, weight, battery life, and performance. Simply incredible.

The problem was; Motorola and eventually IBM with the G5 needed Apple's computer market share to increase dramatically so profits from the PPC chip would allow Moto/IBM to focus the resources necessary to keep the PPC chip ahead of Intel & AMD's offerings. This didn't happen. Apple's computer sales were enough for Apple but not for Moto or IBM. It has nothing to do with BS Apple marketing or with any mythical x86 supremecy over the PPC architecture.

It is the BetaMax vs VHS scenario all over again. The PPC was superior to x86 but x86 had significantly larger marketshare. Eventually marketshare won out by allowing reinvestment of profits to improve the x86 chip to the point where it overcame most of it's shortcomings.

Platform

Dec 13, 2005, 05:44 PM

Just use one of your dual cores to encode your H.264 content with x264. :p Seriously I encode x264 with my Pentium III 866 MHz machine. It only takes a few weeks for a dual pass. LOL ;)

Realtime 1080i/p ;)

runninmac

Dec 13, 2005, 05:45 PM

As Jobs himself spelled out - the product pipeline is to introduce the Intels into consumer products first and then ease into pro products.

OH NO U DID N'T

No where did he EVER say that. Bring up the quote and I will eat my shoe and take pictures of it to send to you

GregA

Dec 13, 2005, 05:46 PM

There are hundreds of hardware drivers for windows, a few of witch will probably be compatible with some of the Mac x86 hardware right off the bat.The EFI stuff says that the old BIOS standards can be included for backwards compatibility & support. Do you think Apple will make a laptop that is NOT tied to Intel legacy at all, or offers compatibility?

From AMI's website (a BIOS manufacturer)
At this time, no shipping 32-bit operating system supports EFI. Support is being developed for Linux. Microsoft has announced support for EFI in “Longhorn”, their next generation 32-bit operating system.

The EFI Framework defines the Compatibility Support Module (CSM), which provides the runtime interfaces necessary for compatibility with existing PC operating systems. AMI's implementation of EFI & the CSM on IA32 platforms is designed to facilitate the transition from BIOS runtime services. This allows users and system integrators to support both firmware interfaces.
http://www.ami.com/support/doc/EFI-FAQ.pdf
(written in 2nd half of 2004)

So Windows XP will only run on a new EFI system if it includes the CSM (compatibility support module). If there's no CSM, I don't think it'd be a simple hack to get Windows running - if it was MS would simply support it now. Of course, perhaps Apple will want compatibility (for running multiple OSes), or will do some totally different BIOS trick.

AndrewMT

Dec 13, 2005, 05:59 PM

Well we all know they are going to release something, we just don't know what that is.

I am hoping for the PowerBooks (probably like most here), but I am expecting the Mac mini.

Although there is one bit of evidence that Apple has some highend laptops coming because ATI is apparently holding off announcing the X1800M (it's highend mobile graphics chip) until certain partners announce laptops with the chip in.

I hope you're right. Putting a X1800M (minumum of 256mb) in a Powerbook would be absolutely amazing for me. I would love to be able to dual boot into windows to play my games, abd finally be able to boot my PC forever.

DWKlink

Dec 13, 2005, 06:09 PM

I saw that article and I think its bollocks. I refuse to belive that a Pentium M 1.8 ghz costs $240 to the manufacturer when the machines retail for $850 at Dell. Dell's margins are high--maybe not Apple high but it's high. Apple being the darling, high-profile customer that it is, Intel will offer similar discounts, even if Dell moves double, triple the units.

Totally agreed. That guy's numbers didn't seem to jive... but you cannot deny the fact that these chips have to cost more money than the G4s that are in there right now. I think you can pick up a G4 for a pack of gum these days... maybe 2 packs...

Stridder44

Dec 13, 2005, 06:10 PM

http://www.frontiernet.net/~joe14580/captain%20obvious.jpg

minimax

Dec 13, 2005, 06:11 PM

OH NO U DID N'T

No where did he EVER say that. Bring up the quote and I will eat my shoe and take pictures of it to send to you

Yes, but it was the original source with the scoop about the intel transition that said the lower end (consumer) would transition first. Not only is it a reliable source but it's plain logic as well.

SiliconAddict

Dec 13, 2005, 06:13 PM

http://www.frontiernet.net/~joe14580/captain%20obvious.jpg

http://home.comcast.net/~jonnormand/master_of_the_obvious.jpg

Peace

Dec 13, 2005, 06:15 PM

No matter what the intitial cost of the Yonah CPU will be Intel is going to cut Apple a LOT of slack pricewise just for the "prestige" of having Apple Computer in it's camp..And Apple will take advantage of that..Does anybody remember how giddy the Intel CEO was at Apple's announcement?

Lacero

Dec 13, 2005, 06:16 PM

Speaking of fake pics, did anybody see the fake pic of Steve Jobs at the MWSF in front of a photoshoped slide that read "Intel 12 years away" instead of "12 months away". I almost died laughing. I wish I had a link to that pic. So great. :p

It's from this post waaay back in April.

Here's to the Crazy Ones http://forums.macrumors.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=35452 (http://www.uriah.com/apple-qt/movies/think-different.mov)

susannahyork

Dec 13, 2005, 06:29 PM

Peace

Dec 13, 2005, 06:42 PM

Does anyone think that apple will release a new powerbook in jan. just to say that there is a new intel powerbook, for marketing reasons? I hope they aren't that silly, but it seems like if they made the most out of an intel ibook it would be better than the current powerbooks, which would look bad. It would be best if they could port all lines at once, so that the lines stay seperate, but who wants to wait until next fall for the new intel chips? This seems like a possible problem to me, I can't wait to see what apple does....

That is precisely why Apple will be introducing the new Intel line of laptops
Starting with the low-end iBook going up to the high end Powerbook.
With a Mac Mini Media Center thrown in..

I see 3 Intel laptops at MacSuperWorldSanFrancisco:

Low-end iBook 13.3in
Medium ***book 15in.
High end Powerbook 17in.

Randall

Dec 13, 2005, 06:45 PM

You don't know what you are talking about. When the PPC G4 chip came out 5+ years ago, it was an all around better chip than anything Intel had to offer. The original Ti 500 Mhz G4 PB WAS THE laptop to be had. Unique and powerful in terms of size, weight, battery life, and performance. Simply incredible.

The problem was; Motorola and eventually IBM with the G5 needed Apple's computer market share to increase dramatically so profits from the PPC chip would allow Moto/IBM to focus the resources necessary to keep the PPC chip ahead of Intel & AMD's offerings. This didn't happen. Apple's computer sales were enough for Apple but not for Moto or IBM. It has nothing to do with BS Apple marketing or with any mythical x86 supremecy over the PPC architecture.

It is the BetaMax vs VHS scenario all over again. The PPC was superior to x86 but x86 had significantly larger marketshare. Eventually marketshare won out by allowing reinvestment of profits to improve the x86 chip to the point where it overcame most of it's shortcomings.

blah blah blah. You talk a lot but you're not saying anything. I didn't claim that the G4 wasn't better then the Intel chips of the time, but that was years ago!! The G4 is a dinosaur now and Intel is about to show the G4 who pwns it. As for BetaMax and VHS, it doesn't apply AT ALL. Maybe it applys to Blu-ray vs HD-DVD, but not to this situation at all. This has nothing to do with Intel catching up, it has everything to do with IBM having their heads up their a$$es.

Randall

Dec 13, 2005, 06:46 PM

It's from this post waaay back in April.

Here's to the Crazy Ones http://forums.macrumors.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=35452 (http://www.uriah.com/apple-qt/movies/think-different.mov)
lmao that's the one! thanks Lacero. :p

rolandf

Dec 13, 2005, 06:50 PM

Perhaps at the beginning with all the hype around the iPod creti and pleti is curious to see a Mac. So Apple will certainly profit from the change.

But using the same chip as the other mass marketers do, will be of no advantage, if the OS is not ways superior or favourable for other reasons. This is something one experiences with SGI, which is more and more fading away into oblivion.

Further, Apple might see itself in the well-known position, that the AMD chip will be superior performance wise, or performance per Watt wise or both and they stick again to the "wrong chip". But this time this is more dangerous, because one has the real comparison.

Also, after reading the specs concerning the new dual core machines for Computer Graphics applications it seemed to me, that the G5 is great, but Apple exactly missed out on the software, i.e., on the drivers for the graphic cards.

That is not a good sign for the pro market. Why should a pro buy an x86 machine from Apple, under such conditions.

Also, probably IBM will (has) to put out in a second iteration mature Cell
type processors that really mean a jump ahead.

All in all, in the long run, it does not make sense for Apple to give up the
PowerPC side, at least not for the pro environment. If not, they will end up being a consumer product company.

mhouse

Dec 13, 2005, 06:59 PM

Thats my point exactly. So if all apple does, hypothetically of course, is replace just the processor, the notebooks are ALREADY costing them more to make. Not even mentioning the possibility of faster GRFX card, faster RAM, bigger HD...

I think people need to temper their expectations a bit. I don't think its possible for Apple to release a CHEAPER notebook based around Yonah that also has the latest GRFX, memory and all the other goodies people are speculating without significantly raising the price of the machine.

You guys are exactly right on this line of thought. Anyone thinking Apple is going to compete on price is kidding themselves. They've never done it and I doubt they ever will. Why should they? Every PC manufacturer in the world (including even Dell lately) is struggling with keeping the business profitable.

What I think is more likely (and practical) is that Apple will keep the same price points (as always) and just pump out some really hot, thin, sexy products with new features. As you guys pointed out, they will still take a hit on margins with the pricier processors but...

A.) they have the fattest margins in the business so they could easily afford a 10-15% hit

B.) they sell 8,000,000,000 iPods every time you blink so they could easily afford a 10-15% hit

GregA

Dec 13, 2005, 07:17 PM

A.) they have the fattest margins in the business so they could easily afford a 10-15% hitApple doesn't have fat margins at all. It's just when some people say "30%" they're assuming Apple pays $0 for the OS - which is not true at all.

If you look at profit vs revenue on the mac hardware (including OS development) then last year barely broke even. It's better this year with the increased Mac sales - since the OS is a once-off cost, and every EXTRA Mac sold really does cost Apple $0 for OSX.

kingtj

Dec 13, 2005, 07:25 PM

If you want my own guess, I'd say I imagine Apple will start out with a relatively low-power Intel CPU and put it in a refreshed iBook line. It will have a primary benefit of lower power consumption rather than CPU power that would make it perform noticeably better than current Powerbooks. That way, it won't kill off the existing Powerbook market before they're ready to update those - but it gives Apple a good starting point to say they're selling machines that have transitioned over to Intel.

The more costly dual-core Intel CPUs will probably go into new Powerbooks a little later on in the year.

Does anyone think that apple will release a new powerbook in jan. just to say that there is a new intel powerbook, for marketing reasons? I hope they aren't that silly, but it seems like if they made the most out of an intel ibook it would be better than the current powerbooks, which would look bad. It would be best if they could port all lines at once, so that the lines stay seperate, but who wants to wait until next fall for the new intel chips? This seems like a possible problem to me, I can't wait to see what apple does....

mhouse

Dec 13, 2005, 07:25 PM

Apple doesn't have fat margins at all. It's just when some people say "30%" they're assuming Apple pays $0 for the OS - which is not true at all.

If you look at profit vs revenue on the mac hardware (including OS development) then last year barely broke even. It's better this year with the increased Mac sales - since the OS is a once-off cost, and every EXTRA Mac sold really does cost Apple $0 for OSX.

I understand what you are saying but I don't think you are correct. Every business analyst in the world says that Apple has the biggest margins in the business. So while we may argue about the definition of 'fat', its clear that Apple has better margins relative to the rest of the PC industry even if those margins are smaller than they seem.

In other words, even assuming OS development eats half of their hardware margins (doubtful), they still have better margins than anyone else.

nataku

Dec 13, 2005, 07:35 PM

hmm... it would seem that a lot of news revolving the expected appearance of intel macs in january keep popping up all over the place. if you ask me... i strongly believe that they really would. the only question is... which will get intel processors first? the current G4 line up? time shall tell.

MarcelV

Dec 13, 2005, 07:35 PM

That is evident from what Jobs said about them developing an x86 version of OS X side by side the PPC version. At the very least they were keeping their options open, which is just smart.
That they keep their options open is not surprising. Jobs' direction with Next (NextStep) was pretty clear. No surprise here. Why would he take a different direction at Apple?

Rosetta is not as impressive as Apple would have you think. PearPC writes sort of a reverse Rosetta if you will, allowing x86 to emulate PPC.First, I am not sure you can compare Rosetta and PearPC. I think that's wishful thinking on PearPC's part. As far as my (limited) experience goes with both, Rosetta is running PPC more efficient on Intel than PearPC runs x86 code on PPC. And if the PPC code on Intel runs at say around 70%, with the speedgains that the Intel platform will bring, this will be offset and most consumer programs will run at comparable speed.

susannahyork

Dec 13, 2005, 07:58 PM

[QUOTE=digitalbiker]You don't know what you are talking about. When the PPC G4 chip came out 5+ years ago, it was an all around better chip than anything Intel had to offer. The original Ti 500 Mhz G4 PB WAS THE laptop to be had. Unique and powerful in terms of size, weight, battery life, and performance. Simply incredible.

I am still using the 500 Mhz g4 pb to this day. Am I behind? Guess it's time to upgrade....

Peace

Dec 13, 2005, 08:06 PM

Without getting into specifics I'll just say that Rosetta works quit well on my Dev Kit.

Norse Son

Dec 13, 2005, 08:07 PM

...the PowerBook line is in dire need of an update. I see this getting the Yonahs before the iBook line...The iBook line is the perfect suckage machine.

In the consumer space, we'll see the mac minis getting the low-power Intel chips, plus the speed needed to decode (or encode) HD H.264 on the fly...

First time post, long time reader - I post on other sites regularly...

I agree with Lacero: the PowerBook needs a heart transplant, 'cuz the G4 has had so many bypass ops that it looks like a plate of spaghetti... I think it will be announced at the keynote, but available first week of February. It will be the dual-core, 32bit Yonah in the 15 & 17" models at up to the top projected speed of 2.1GHz. As for the 12" PB, who knows...

The iBook will follow in about May-June, when Intel releases the single-core, 32bit Yonah - just in time for back-to-school.

Then, around September, when Intel releases the dual-core, 64bit Merom, I (personally) think that we will see the PowerBook line expand into a "regular" lineup of the dual-core Yonah at 13"/15" WS (the 17" will switch exclusively to Merom). And we will see a new "PowerBook Pro" line featuring Merom at 15"/17" WS-HD(?), top-end GPUs with up to 256MB of VRAM, S-ATA HDs, Airport/Centrino 802.11n, etc.

And as far as the mini goes, I think the present form-factor may wait until the single-core Yonah in June. However, if the DVR rumors are true, we will see a "fat mini" at MWSF. With that taller form-factor it will have a BTO option of 3.5" hard drives up to 500GB, and a much-improved GPU (compared to the still-shipping current mini), better audio i/o, Centrino 802.11n, etc.

As for the iMac, I think that, strictly from a marketing standpoint, we will not see it switch to Intel until Merom, due to the "sticky quandry" of taking a step backwards (to 32bit, albeit dual-core, Yonah) from the 64bit G5... Still, I think Apple will get at least 2-300 more MHz out of the PPC970 before Merom, as well as a GPU upgrade and 802.11n(?)...

XServe will wait for... I think it's called Woodcrest(?)... the server design-variant of the Yonah architecture. And the PowerMacs will await Conroe, which will debut around the same time as Merom, I seem to recall.

Just my thoughts...

GregA

Dec 13, 2005, 08:23 PM

Every business analyst in the world says that Apple has the biggest margins in the business. So while we may argue about the definition of 'fat', its clear that Apple has better margins relative to the rest of the PC industry even if those margins are smaller than they seem.

In other words, even assuming OS development eats half of their hardware margins (doubtful), they still have better margins than anyone else.Well, I'm a business analyst and I don't say that. And every report I've read that talked about the fat margin was either unclear on the cost apportioned to the OS, or specifically considered that a research cost which was paid for by the fat margin (ie the margin is calculated without considering the cost). Dell knows they pay $X for WindowsXP so it gets considered in the margin.

When you next read any report on Apple margins, consider that aspect and check how the researcher approaches the OSX costs.

texasmafia

Dec 13, 2005, 08:30 PM

I think they will put intel in the iBook before the Powerbook but we'll see. I'm no expert but from just talking to people who use Macs or are looking to switch, they are much more interested in buying an intel iBook than an intel Powerbook.

PubGuy

Dec 13, 2005, 08:44 PM

Yeah, me too. I'm still using my TiBook G4-400 with 384 MB RAM, 10.4.3 -- it's starting to feel its age. However, I've waited this long, so I'll wait for the Intel Powerbooks before upgrading.

Randall

Dec 13, 2005, 08:47 PM

ewinemiller

Dec 13, 2005, 09:00 PM

I'm not sure what the point is of dual booting with windows, besides the ability to run countless pieces of software, most of which have an OS X answer to them, at least a lot of the common software titles do.

Because I write software for PCs and Macs. If I can get a dual boot Apple, I only have to buy 1 machine, my machine of choice changes from Dell to Apple, and I still save money. If I can get that machine with a dual core then I can get rid of and never have to replace the dual processor desktops that use for building and debugging the multi threaded code, again more money. I am twitching for a dual core power book that will dual boot with Windows and has a decent video card.

guerro

Dec 13, 2005, 09:09 PM

Apple are going to produce an intel mac mini and a seperate PVR/home theatre box with intel proc. They are going to use the Yonah chip for v1.0

Prom1

Dec 13, 2005, 09:15 PM

@Norse Son, I agree & welcome to Macrumors where the applesauce turns.;)

Today I saw user on the bus home from work using a 12" PowerBook G4! Not sure the revision, but I was impressed to see that it still is a wicked machine; portable and excellent for this user which was a website coder for his job. I couldnt tell what he was coding but he did say that he was a linux user but decided to get the machine because he really adored the hardware. This last bit I hope remains in for all of us potential users and droolers ;) , in the next iteration of PowerBooks.

Im not too concerned about 32-bit dual core or 64-bit dual core if not enough apps support it; but I'm more concerned about fit & finish, longevity, and overal harmony of components. ex; it took Apple way too long to finally use 128MB video memory in the Pro line of laptops. Our cousins in PC land have the options of 128-256MB video chips that are hot swappable on their high-end models and their resolutions can handle it!

I want to see 256MB Built to order option & an Option for this in the 15/17inch PowerBooks as an upgrade.

PS I'll be sad to see the 12inch go though ... maybe one day, maybe...

minimax

Dec 13, 2005, 09:15 PM

blah blah blah. You talk a lot but you're not saying anything. I didn't claim that the G4 wasn't better then the Intel chips of the time, but that was years ago!! The G4 is a dinosaur now and Intel is about to show the G4 who pwns it. As for BetaMax and VHS, it doesn't apply AT ALL. Maybe it applys to Blu-ray vs HD-DVD, but not to this situation at all. This has nothing to do with Intel catching up, it has everything to do with IBM having their heads up their a$$es.

haha. the post by digitalbiker is one of the very few posts in this thread that actually said something. Intel fanbois take note.
And yes, the betamax vs VHS comparison is correct. I'm actually wondering if you even know what you are talking about or just troll this forum.

mhouse

Dec 13, 2005, 09:16 PM

RHMMMM

Dec 13, 2005, 10:35 PM

Our cousins in PC land have the options of 128-256MB video chips that are hot swappable on their high-end models and their resolutions can handle it!

What are you talking about? There are no hot swappable video memory modules in any computer I've ever seen, much less a laptop, what the heck would you need that for?

Randall

Dec 13, 2005, 11:00 PM

haha. the post by digitalbiker is one of the very few posts in this thread that actually said something. Intel fanbois take note.
And yes, the betamax vs VHS comparison is correct. I'm actually wondering if you even know what you are talking about or just troll this forum.How am I a troll? Because I'm an Intel "fanboy"? Puh-leese. The betamax vs VHS comparison is not correct. If that were the case, then one of these architectures would be a total failure, and I don't think that's the case at all. But if you insist to use it, then guess wich architecture would equate to betamax? Yup you guessed it... and betamax was a complete and total failure. IMO that is still a terrible annalogy for what we're talking about here. I know a lot about the x86 architecture, I am a computer engineer and I've had the unplesentry of writing assembly code for both RISC and CISC architectures. And to be honest, Reduced Instruction Set Computers are the way to go. More instructions, but much more streightforward. So in a way I am sad to see the PowerPC and RISC architecture to leave the Mac. Developers welcome to assembly hell, where CISC is your friend. Who knows, maybe lots of people love CISC assembly. Sick bastards. :p

EricNau

Dec 13, 2005, 11:13 PM

Apple won't skimp on the features or hardware, they can't afford to do it again. This is going to be like their "rebrith" (for lack of a better word) and Apple knows if they don't start it with a bang, they may never get another chance.

EricNau

Dec 13, 2005, 11:26 PM

MWSF lasts several days; which day do they release new products? At what time? :confused:
Is it during the keynote by Steve Jobs where they release everything?

Jschultz

Dec 13, 2005, 11:31 PM

Yeah, me too. I'm still using my TiBook G4-400 with 384 MB RAM, 10.4.3 -- it's starting to feel its age. However, I've waited this long, so I'll wait for the Intel Powerbooks before upgrading.

Ha! I thought I was one of the only ones on the forum with the original TiBook 400! I've got 640 mb of ram and 10.4.3, and it still chugs. I won't buy another Powerbook until we get 64-bit dual core chips and this current LCD panel dies. Will probably be 1-1.5 years, but I think if i can use 5 year old technology now, I can hold off 15 months :D

Dual core in a lappy sounds pretty crazy though!

Multimedia

Dec 13, 2005, 11:32 PM

runninmac

Dec 13, 2005, 11:37 PM

MWSF lasts several days; which day do they release new products? At what time? :confused:
Is it during the keynote by Steve Jobs where they release everything?

I belive they release them ALL on Jan. 10th @ 10 AM Pacific Time.

Im so proud of myself for knowing that off the top of my head:D

EricNau

Dec 14, 2005, 12:00 AM

I belive they release them ALL on Jan. 10th @ 10 AM Pacific Time.

Im so proud of myself for knowing that off the top of my head:D
The Steve Jobs keynote starts at 9:00 PST, but I had to look that up. :o

corywoolf

Dec 14, 2005, 12:25 AM

Who here thinks that Apple with come out with Intel Powerbooks in January? :D

I very much doubt it. Just a mac mini with media center functionality, and maybe MAYBE (thats a big maybe) an ibook. New shuffle with bookmarking capability. ilife '06 (with frontrow 2.0) and iwork '06.

What's not going to happen:

powerbook update
tablet
newton
imac update

Peace

Dec 14, 2005, 12:30 AM

John Lennon Bus Was There Last Year As Well. I took the tour.

I don't doubt you took the tour.I was just going by what MWSF says on their website.
http://www.macworldexpo.com/live/20/events/20SFO06A/SN322012#MAP

"For the first time at Macworld Conference & Expo, experience first hand the John Lennon Educational Tour Bus."

jade

Dec 14, 2005, 01:01 AM

Well, I'm a business analyst and I don't say that. And every report I've read that talked about the fat margin was either unclear on the cost apportioned to the OS, or specifically considered that a research cost which was paid for by the fat margin (ie the margin is calculated without considering the cost). Dell knows they pay $X for WindowsXP so it gets considered in the margin.

When you next read any report on Apple margins, consider that aspect and check how the researcher approaches the OSX costs.

Apple makes higher margins on hardware for a few key reasons:

1. The margins on the pro machines are high, and Apple sells more pro machines, and encourages the sales team to sell significant numbers of pro machines.

2. Notebooks are higher margin than desktops, and over half of Apples's sales come from notebook machines, putting them a step ahead of the competition (due to attractive notebook designs)

3. Selling boxed copies of OS X. These arer basically gravy and generate huge profits for apple. Mostly likely 70% profit. Salespeople are also encouraged to sell these products.

4. Selling boxed software. iLife, Appleworks, iWork, Fincal Cut etc. These are also high margin products. Apple aslo offers spiffs on pro software sales as well, giving Apple sales and partners incentives to sell high margin pro software.

5. Selling Apple accessories. Airport cards, remotes, batteries, power adapters. Truth be told, Apple has a much higher number of accessories to generate larger margins on. The average computer manufacture only owns power adapters and batteries, no additional hardware like wireless accessories and the rest.

6. .Mac and Applecare. These are the most important moneymaker for Apple and are the main reason their margins are huge in the industry. Apple maintains quotas for all sales channels on A9plecare and .Mac attach rates. These are 80%+ profit. Apple typically has about a 70% attach rate on Applecare products for computers, and .Mac is about 30 or 35% attach rate. These numbers maintain Apple margins, and lead the industry by a long shot. HP, Compaq, and Sony don't have this sort of option to offer on their computers, and this money is collected by the retailers in extended warranty revenues.

As Apple direct hardware margins have decreased, Apple sets more agressive targets for the ancillary items and maintains the profitability.

SiliconAddict

Dec 14, 2005, 01:16 AM

Wow there is a pretty high FUD factor on the thread already. I think this transition is going to get uglier before it gets better with PPC hold outs lambasting x86 users even with every benchmark to the contrary. This is going to get ugly. :(

heisetax

Dec 14, 2005, 02:28 AM

http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

The Examiner/Bloomberg News (http://www.sfexaminer.com/articles/2005/12/13/business/20051213_bu02_apple.txt) reports that a number of analysts are expecting Apple to introduce Intel-based Macs in January at Macworld San Francisco (http://guides.macrumors.com/Macworld_San_Francisco).

"Unidentified industry sources" are cited as the source of this information.

While this could represent independent sources, it may also simply represent the same stories (http://www.macrumors.com/site.php?mode=search&term=intel) that have been reported at MacRumors over the past few weeks.

It may come down more to things like is Rosetta ready? How much software is actually ready for the Intel Macs? Will the new machines be faster with native Intel Mac programs than the old PPC Macs? With a release before Rosetta & enough native Intel Mac sotware is ready will the Intel Macs take a big hit in sales? Will the perceived hit be big enough that Apple will wait until later in the year for a better Rosetta & more native Intel Mac software?

Since Intel is now going to stress the power per watt instead of clock speed, the new Intel Macs may be slower than their PPC counterparts. Just look at the Pentium M speeds aound & below 2 GHz. You may need a 4 GHz Intel Mac when you're running Rosetta to give you acceptable speeds when running your programs.

Is Apple selling enough iPods to carry them over until the Intel Mac runs as fast as the old PPC Mac? Will Apple become even more of a music company rather a computer hardware/software manufacturer. By the way does Apple actually manufacture any of their computers &/or iPods anymore? Or is everything produced by contract manufacturers in CHINA?

Bill the TaxMan

mynameisjesse

Dec 14, 2005, 02:55 AM

ibook if we're lucky. honestly, if they come out with a powerbook thats a stupid move made purely for money. the product would be worse than the one out now(besides the processor speed). don't forget its going to be a rev. a of a brand new processor architecture.

mynameisjesse

Dec 14, 2005, 03:02 AM

By the way does Apple actually manufacture any of their computers &/or iPods anymore? Or is everything produced by contract manufacturers in CHINA?
Bill the TaxMan

nope, they don't manufacturer them anymore. not exactly sure where, but china sounds about right.

BRLawyer

Dec 14, 2005, 03:52 AM

It may come down more to things like is Rosetta ready? How much software is actually ready for the Intel Macs? Will the new machines be faster with native Intel Mac programs than the old PPC Macs? With a release before Rosetta & enough native Intel Mac sotware is ready will the Intel Macs take a big hit in sales? Will the perceived hit be big enough that Apple will wait until later in the year for a better Rosetta & more native Intel Mac software?

Since Intel is now going to stress the power per watt instead of clock speed, the new Intel Macs may be slower than their PPC counterparts. Just look at the Pentium M speeds aound & below 2 GHz. You may need a 4 GHz Intel Mac when you're running Rosetta to give you acceptable speeds when running your programs.

Is Apple selling enough iPods to carry them over until the Intel Mac runs as fast as the old PPC Mac? Will Apple become even more of a music company rather a computer hardware/software manufacturer. By the way does Apple actually manufacture any of their computers &/or iPods anymore? Or is everything produced by contract manufacturers in CHINA?

Bill the TaxMan

Sounds like FUD to me...Apple has several manufacturing facilities, either owned by itself or outsourced...my iMac G5 Rev. B, for example, has been manufactured in Cork, Ireland...they also have factories in Taiwan, South Korea, U.S. (I think) and China.

Rosetta is already operating well, so I don't know what you're talking about; the top-end programs like PS will be ready by the end of 2006, so no "big hit" will occur for Apple.

And if you talk about MHz, we all know sheer numbers don't mean performance...a Sun Niagara II runs at about 1.4GHz...who cares if it's nominally slow than a P4, when it performs so much better?

To conclude, Intel Macs will run AT LEAST as fast as PPC counterparts, with the temporary exception of top-tier Altivec products...that's all.

BlueRevolution

Dec 14, 2005, 04:41 AM

Rosetta is already operating well, so I don't know what you're talking about; the top-end programs like PS will be ready by the end of 2006, so no "big hit" will occur for Apple.

from where I stand it seems like the pro apps that use the most system resources are the ones made by Apple. so I'd guess the Intel Power Macs/PowerBooks will wait until Apple's pro apps run perfectly as universal binaries, at which time they'll immediately jump to market and make all of the competition that hasn't ported to Intel yet look bad by showing how much faster their own apps run.

I'm certainly hoping the Intel PowerBooks will get faster than the current antiquated offerings, but I'd be willing to take a hit in speed for a laptop with longer battery life than my iPod Shuffle. the only reason I don't have a PowerBook yet (money aside) is the 5.5 hour battery life even in Apple's rather optimistic eyes. if it can go without being plugged in, it had better go all day like that.

edit: reading back a few pages, I want to add I'm firmly in the PowerBook-first camp. why?

-PowerBooks are pushing the limits of the G4 processor now and are screaming for an update, while the iBooks are being held back to avoid encroaching on PB territory. releasing an Intel PB would let the iBooks expand into that space while still maintaining the space between the two.

-iBooks are used largely by students, so it would make sense to release them in time for back to school. most of the rumours are saying the rollout starts in January, when the iBook would make less sense.

-I seem to recall Intel waiting on "certain manufacturers" to release Yonah, so they are probably putting pressure on Apple to release something that showcases the full capabilities of the processor - both speed and battery life. ergo, PB.

-it just makes sense to start upgrading from the top of the line not the bottom.

-I really really want an Intel PB before I leave this place in May. so I gave Steve a call and asked if he'd be so kind as to rush the PBs into market. :D

minimax

Dec 14, 2005, 04:49 AM

How am I a troll? Because I'm an Intel "fanboy"? Puh-leese. The betamax vs VHS comparison is not correct. If that were the case, then one of these architectures would be a total failure, and I don't think that's the case at all. But if you insist to use it, then guess wich architecture would equate to betamax? Yup you guessed it... and betamax was a complete and total failure. IMO that is still a terrible annalogy for what we're talking about here. I know a lot about the x86 architecture, I am a computer engineer and I've had the unplesentry of writing assembly code for both RISC and CISC architectures. And to be honest, Reduced Instruction Set Computers are the way to go. More instructions, but much more streightforward. So in a way I am sad to see the PowerPC and RISC architecture to leave the Mac. Developers welcome to assembly hell, where CISC is your friend. Who knows, maybe lots of people love CISC assembly. Sick bastards. :p

PPC on the desktop is a failure otherwise Apple wouldnt be switching. Even IBM and Freescale say they are not interested in the desktop market (anymore). Just like V2000 and Betamax were superior, VHS market dominance forced them to withdraw from the market. A clean RISC architecture is still superior but without proper investment it just isnt competitive.

And yes, when you are 'blabla-ing' someone with a decent refute to your original claim (that the G4 never was superior to the pentium / athlon), making unfunded and misinforming claims (there were several in this thread already) you are engaging in trolling behaviour.

GregA

Dec 14, 2005, 06:25 AM

Apple makes higher margins on hardware for a few key reasons:

1. The margins on the pro machines are high, and Apple sells more pro machines, and encourages the sales team to sell significant numbers of pro machines.

2. Notebooks are higher margin than desktops, and over half of Apples's sales come from notebook machines, putting them a step ahead of the competition (due to attractive notebook designs)

Apple doesn't make higher margins because the pro margins are high. That's circular. Nor does it make higher margins because notebooks are higher margins than desktops. Fair enough to say more expensive machines have bigger margins and Apple doesn't sell as many really cheap machines as other manufactures.

I'm not debating that Apple's computers show a high margin, I 'm simply observing that they don't include the OS cost in that as other PC manufacturers do - this is important. I also disagree that this margin means they could cut their prices - Apple's slim profit (smaller percentage wise than the other computer companies) reflects the large amount they spend on r&d, and on OSX. They may choose to run at a loss to build market share, but they have less "fat" to trim on their prices than others (unless they drop their R&D which I hope they never do!)

Your points 3-6 are nothing to do with hardware margins.

Randall

Dec 14, 2005, 06:47 AM

PPC on the desktop is a failure otherwise Apple wouldnt be switching. Even IBM and Freescale say they are not interested in the desktop market (anymore). Just like V2000 and Betamax were superior, VHS market dominance forced them to withdraw from the market. A clean RISC architecture is still superior but without proper investment it just isnt competitive.

And yes, when you are 'blabla-ing' someone with a decent refute to your original claim (that the G4 never was superior to the pentium / athlon), making unfunded and misinforming claims (there were several in this thread already) you are engaging in trolling behaviour.
Hmm unfunded and mis-informing claims? Kinda like rumors?? I can't imagine there being any unfunded claims in a rumors thread. :eek: :rolleyes:

By the way, if you read my original post, you would see that I never claimed that the G4 was never better then the Intel processors of it's time, mearly the fact that Apple marketing left those claims up the entire time that Intel x86 was rapidly catching up and passing by IBM PPC.

d_and_n5000

Dec 14, 2005, 09:26 AM

Although I doubt Apple will do this, if they really wanted to further the halo effect, they'd build in flawless integrated dual-boot and let people run Windows and OS X together. Think user-switching style flipping between systems. The cube spins, and you're on a Window's machine. That would be the ultimate Mac Switcher experience, and would suddenly make the Mac platform a lot more appealing for the average end-user. You can practically hear them, "Cheap, made by the iPod people, and compatible with all my Windows stuff? Sign me up!!!"

me likes, me likes a lot. I may just be able to get my family to switch, if this is the case!! *goes off dancing to celebrate possible family switching*

AidenShaw

Dec 14, 2005, 09:50 AM

...they'd build in flawless integrated dual-boot and let people run Windows and OS X together. Think user-switching style flipping between systems. The cube spins, and you're on a Window's machine. That would be the ultimate Mac Switcher experience, and would suddenly make the Mac platform a lot more appealing for the average end-user.
And if Apple did that, why would Adobe port Photoshop to OSx86? (actually port twice - there's the OSx64 port to 64-bit Intel in the not too distant future)

There would be little incentive for companies to continue to make OS X software (at least, little incentive to port to OSx86).

Even Virtual PC has the potential to cause companies to decide not to do an OSx86. (product manager: "Let me get this straight - you mean with zero expenditure for an OSx86 port Mac users can run the Windows version at almost full speed?")

SiliconAddict

Dec 14, 2005, 10:05 AM

GregA you haven't shown any proof to the contrary. You keep pointing out OS X as a major selling point. Well when you consider XP sells in bulk to manufacturers in the $50-70 range Apple isn't hitting those numbers but it has to be in the $100 range and the simple fact is that things such as iPod sure has HELL don't cost $400, $500, $600. I spent $599 on my iPod Photo. No way in hell is there $600 worth of parts and R&D in that thing. Annalists have pulled apart the high end low end shuffle. In both cases there isn't more then $50, $100 in parts for either device. The mini? The $500 model. There is NOT $500 worth of parts in that unless the OS costs $200. And we won’t even get into the price of things like RAM upgrades. In bulk a stick of 1GB RAM sure as hell does NOT cost $100 which is exactly the price of upgrading RAM on a Mac Mini.

Oh and as for the OS. Apple easily makes up those costs with people willing to purchase the OS stand alone which the Mac faithful easily cover.

Again if you are claiming otherwise about Apple's profit margins please post proof to the contrary.

TangoCharlie

Dec 14, 2005, 11:28 AM

Man I wish I could have a job as an analist so I could just repeat other people's research.

I don't think there's much "research" done! Everyone knows Apple is moving to intel.... There's a WWDC in January.... So, some "Analyst" (anal somthing) puts two and two together.... gets five! I'd say it's 50:50 if we see any x86 Macs in January. Fortunately, I'm not a betting sort of a guy. :)

digitalbiker

Dec 14, 2005, 11:48 AM

And if Apple did that, why would Adobe port Photoshop to OSx86? (actually port twice - there's the OSx64 port to 64-bit Intel in the not too distant future)

There would be little incentive for companies to continue to make OS X software (at least, little incentive to port to OSx86).

Even Virtual PC has the potential to cause companies to decide not to do an OSx86. (product manager: "Let me get this straight - you mean with zero expenditure for an OSx86 port Mac users can run the Windows version at almost full speed?")

I read the original post and thought the exact same thing. This is still one of my biggest concerns with the switch to Intel.
I love OS X but MS is adding a lot of nice features to Vista as well.
If a Wine or MS VPC product can run windows apps at or near full speed in an OS X window I see this as a perfect excuse for software developers to delay or not port to OS X native.
MS may even offer VPC for free for OS X users so that they instantly increase their software market without having to develop any OS X native apps.

edinburghmac

Dec 14, 2005, 12:11 PM

Surely the most likely event is the announcement of an Intel based iBook at MWSF'06 - didn't Steve Jobs say in his Keynote at WWDC'05 that the road map was to go for consumer products first and finish with the professional products (PowerMacs) in '07. It's well known that the big professional apps aren't ready and demoing Photoshop using Rosetta on an Intel PowerBook wouldn't impress anyone, whereas porting of the key consumer iLife apps is just about finished.

Additionally to this conjecture I just received an E-mail from Apple today detailing a £50 discount promotion on the 12" iBook which runs until 31/12/05 - these kinds of offers typically precede a new product announcement. Also of note, the UK Apple refurbished store is currently open until 04/01 and is full of iBooks and PowerBooks, again behaviour normally preceding product announcements as Apple looks to empty it's inventory channels.

SiliconAddict

Dec 14, 2005, 01:01 PM

Surely the most likely event is the announcement of an Intel based iBook at MWSF'06 - didn't Steve Jobs say in his Keynote at WWDC'05 that the road map was to go for consumer products first and finish with the professional products (PowerMacs) in '07.

No....*bangs head into keyboard* nonononono........This has to be the single greatest mistquote in the history of time.

http://news.com.com/2100-1047_3-5748045.html

I've been using this reference for a year (OK 7 months. ) now...because there has been a year's worth (OK so it feels like a year.) of people making all kinds of BS claims or simply misquotes in this case as to what Steve'o said.

So where does that leave us? Well, Apple is strong, Apple is pretty strong right now, and the Mac is strong. We saw this. So this is great. This is a great time to start building for the future to make us even stronger. We know transitions. We're been through two of them and they've kept our platform at the forefront and we're going to continue to be bold and begin the third transition today as far as the developers are concerned to make the best machines we know how to make in the future.

This transition isn't going to happen overnight. Again, we're making awesome machines right now, we've got a lot of great PowerPC products in the pipeline, but we're also working to design some Intel-based Macs and when we're here next year, we plan to have them in the marketplace and there will be a transition over the next two years. We're getting ready. We've done a lot of work as you've seen today. OS X is running fantastic on Intel processors. Xcode 2.1 is in your hands today. Rosetta, for our customers for those apps that are not universal on day one. We've already made a big investment in this and we're fairly far along. It's time for you to get ready too now and what do you have to do to get ready? One thing, create universal binaries of your apps. We've got a lot of stuff going on at the conference to help you today.

All of this is on page 5 of the transcripts (http://news.com.com/Apples+Intel+switch+Jobs+keynote+transcript+-+page+5/2100-1047_3-5748045-5.html?tag=st.num)

BlueRevolution

Dec 14, 2005, 08:03 PM

Although I doubt Apple will do this, if they really wanted to further the halo effect, they'd build in flawless integrated dual-boot and let people run Windows and OS X together. Think user-switching style flipping between systems. The cube spins, and you're on a Window's machine.

you know, you would be able to do that anyway... once VPC is ported to Intel, which as far as I can see would be a matter of deleting a few thousand lines of code. then just create two user accounts for yourself, turn on fast user switching and run VPC full screen on one of them. it may not be built in but it'd work...

strange days

Dec 14, 2005, 09:21 PM

you know, you would be able to do that anyway... once VPC is ported to Intel, which as far as I can see would be a matter of deleting a few thousand lines of code. then just create two user accounts for yourself, turn on fast user switching and run VPC full screen on one of them. it may not be built in but it'd work...

oooohhh, i like that ! :rolleyes:

...i was exactly wandering when and how will the PC emulators come out with an almost native winbooze XP solution for the MacIntel platform...

AidenShaw

Dec 14, 2005, 10:36 PM

oooohhh, i like that ! :rolleyes:

...i was exactly wandering when and how will the PC emulators come out with an almost native winbooze XP solution for the MacIntel platform...
Think about the fact that VMware is a half-billion a year business built on PC emulation on the PC.

Think about the fact that MS Virtual Server and Virtual PC also are major businesses build on PC emulation on a PC.

"Virtual PC for Mac x86 Edition" is simply the current product with all the slow parts removed. :D

Randall

Dec 14, 2005, 11:01 PM

Think about the fact that VMware is a half-billion a year business built on PC emulation on the PC.

Think about the fact that MS Virtual Server and Virtual PC also are major businesses build on PC emulation on a PC.

"Virtual PC for Mac x86 Edition" is simply the current product with all the slow parts removed. :D
Vitual PC for the x86 architecture is an oxymoron. The line between Mac and PC has basically shrunk to OS. Despite the Mac fanboy's feelings otherwise, the line between PC and Mac has just been severly blurred.

AidenShaw

Dec 14, 2005, 11:08 PM

The line between Mac and PC has basically shrunk to OS. Despite the Mac fanboy's feelings otherwise, the line between PC and Mac has just been severly blurred.
True, but the PC apps still are calling Win32/Win64 APIs and libraries - so to run the PC apps on the Mac needs a compatibility layer.

Virtual PC for Mac OSx86 Edition or WINE are needed to provide that...

<rant>Why is it that Mac products so often rename things? Is it so that the fanbois feel that there's something unique about the Apple platform?

WINE on Linux.x86 and WINE on OSx86 are 95+% the same thing - so why the need to call the Mac version "DarWINE" ???? </rant>

bursty

Dec 14, 2005, 11:10 PM

-PowerBooks are pushing the limits of the G4 processor now and are screaming for an update, while the iBooks are being held back to avoid encroaching on PB territory. releasing an Intel PB would let the iBooks expand into that space while still maintaining the space between the two.

-iBooks are used largely by students, so it would make sense to release them in time for back to school. most of the rumours are saying the rollout starts in January, when the iBook would make less sense.

Two good points, I fully expect the PBs to be updated before the iBooks. At least thats what I'm hoping for. ;)

Randall

Dec 14, 2005, 11:16 PM

Two good points, I fully expect the PBs to be updated before the iBooks. At least thats what I'm hoping for. ;)If Apple allows yet another notebook line to pass by the POWERbook line, then Steve Jobs needs to be taken out back and shot. It's supposed to be a top-of-the-line machine, not some dusty old G4 wannabe. G4 was adiquate up intil sometime last year. Currently a Powerbook G4 has a tough time keeping up with some Celeron M laptops. :rolleyes:

Randall

Dec 14, 2005, 11:18 PM

True, but the PC apps still are calling Win32/Win64 APIs and libraries - so to run the PC apps on the Mac needs a compatibility layer.

Virtual PC for Mac OSx86 Edition or WINE are needed to provide that...

<rant>Why is it that Mac products so often rename things? Is it so that the fanbois feel that there's something unique about the Apple platform?

WINE on Linux.x86 and WINE on OSx86 are 95+% the same thing - so why the need to call the Mac version "DarWINE" ???? </rant> Yes you are right about the APIs, and very right about the renaming of common applications. It is what it is though I suppose. :rolleyes: ;)

The good thing about OS X86 is that virtualPC will be much more of a real implementation, as opposed to an emulator. Spoofing APIs will not slow you down nearly as much as spoofing an entire architecture.

~Shard~

Dec 14, 2005, 11:19 PM

If Apple allows yet another notebook line to pass by the POWERbook line, then Steve Jobs needs to be taken out back and shot. It's supposed to be a top-of-the-line machine, not some dusty old G4 wannabe. G4 was adiquate up intil sometime last year. Currently a Powerbook G4 has a tough time keeping up with some Celeron M laptops. :rolleyes:

Yeah, it will be interesting to see what happens - the PowerBooks need the update more than the iBooks in some respects (as you elude to above), yet the iBooks haven't been updated as recently as the PowerBooks have.

The obvious solution to this problem - Apple will update both the iBooks and PowerBooks at MWSF! :eek: ;) :cool:

Randall

Dec 14, 2005, 11:20 PM

Yeah, it will be interesting to see what happens - the PowerBooks need the update more than the iBooks in some respects (as you elude to above), yet the iBooks haven't been updated as recently as the PowerBooks have.

The obvious solution to this problem - Apple will update both the iBooks and PowerBooks at MWSF! :eek: ;) :cool:I hope so :) Seeing as how the single core Yonahs will be out in late spring, and the dual cores out in January, my gut says that Powerbooks get it first, then iBooks in June. After all, Apple needs something to distingush between the two lines. (besides the cool brushed aluminum case) ;)

Peace

Dec 14, 2005, 11:33 PM

It's quit possible we will see the Intel iBook come out initially with the Pentium 4 or M mobile processor.
While most in this forum would say that was a step back I would disagree.
Put a Pentium-4 or M along with PCI-Express, a faster FSB ( 533mhz) and a decent PCI-E mobile graphics card and it would give the iBook G4 a good run for it's money.

Six months later do the typical update to the single-core Yonah.

The Yonah Dual-Core is reserved for the Powerbook:)

bursty

Dec 14, 2005, 11:48 PM

bursty

Dec 14, 2005, 11:49 PM

If Apple allows yet another notebook line to pass by the POWERbook line, then Steve Jobs needs to be taken out back and shot. It's supposed to be a top-of-the-line machine, not some dusty old G4 wannabe. G4 was adiquate up intil sometime last year. Currently a Powerbook G4 has a tough time keeping up with some Celeron M laptops. :rolleyes:
I'm kind of pissed about the current Pro line. The Powerbook is obviously way short of where it should be and while the new Powermacs are impressive, they STILL dont come standard with AE and BT. :rolleyes:

BlueRevolution

Dec 15, 2005, 05:15 AM

Seeing as how the single core Yonahs will be out in late spring, and the dual cores out in January, my gut says that Powerbooks get it first, then iBooks in June.

really? I was expecting the PBs to be given single cores to start with, then upgraded when the dual cores come out and the single cores moved to the iBooks. if what you say is true, that is certainly more evidence to support the PB as a platform to roll out the Intels on.

it does raise an interesting question though: how much of Yonah's game plan is being based on Apple's integration of the chip? it's possible that Apple said OK PowerBooks need them first, so give us chips for that first. then later come the single cores so we can put out a consumer version without looking cheap. or, on the other hand, it's also possible that Intel just wants to get a dual core Yonah on the market before the single because a single core just isn't fast enough to make everyone go ooh and aah. excited though Intel may be to work with Apple, let's not forget that Apple is a small fraction of Intel's market.

I'm kind of pissed about the current Pro line. The Powerbook is obviously way short of where it should be and while the new Powermacs are impressive, they STILL dont come standard with AE and BT. :rolleyes:

at least you don't need to have white antennas sticking out of your computer anymore to use them like mine does. :rolleyes:

Power Macs are aimed primarily at pro app users who would be more likely to want to use gigabit ethernet than Airport. it would be interesting to see what percentage of Apple's online sales of each line have AE/BT selected as BTO upgrades. (well, before they started being standard on some lines anyway.) I'd imagine that there's a lower percentage for the PMs, hence the lack of upgrade.

aswitcher

Dec 15, 2005, 05:22 AM

BlueRevolution

Dec 15, 2005, 05:27 AM

Thats an interesting theory. Why risk a new chip when they can be pumping out tried and tested chips now.

well, no Mac user will buy a Mac with a Pentium chip in it...

seriously though, Apple needed time to get OS X x86 ready for market, and to give their developers a chance to port to the new architecture. since they're waiting anyway, they may as well wait on the latest greatest from Intel to make people take notice. Intel just has to cough gently at the processor rollout and mention that Apple has a line of laptops with the processor shipping today and it's all worth it. besides, it seems more Apple's style to go for the latest greatest. and then to stick with it until it's long dead, insisting that it can still beat anything the competition has to offer :cool:

ASP272

Dec 15, 2005, 07:08 AM

Analysts are as inaccurate as many of macrumors competitors! But it's always nice to get one more source for a good rumor. :)

Randall

Dec 15, 2005, 07:11 AM

well, no Mac user will buy a Mac with a Pentium chip in it...

seriously though, Apple needed time to get OS X x86 ready for market, and to give their developers a chance to port to the new architecture. since they're waiting anyway, they may as well wait on the latest greatest from Intel to make people take notice. Intel just has to cough gently at the processor rollout and mention that Apple has a line of laptops with the processor shipping today and it's all worth it. besides, it seems more Apple's style to go for the latest greatest. and then to stick with it until it's long dead, insisting that it can still beat anything the competition has to offer :cool:LOL then they simply won't be buying a new Mac indefinately. Yonah = Pentium M. :p The sad thing is that even Intel's previous line of Pentium M's will give the G4 a run for it's money. The G4 is the caveman of Processors. Unveiled in January 2001. 5 years ago!!!

Stonecoldcleric

Dec 15, 2005, 07:41 AM

well, no Mac user will buy a Mac with a Pentium chip in it...
:cool:

I couldn't agree more - I am enduring with my 1ghz 12" pb until I see what appears in jan. if it is a ibook or a pb with a pentium - no way! I'll stick with this dude a little longer until the pb performace nears the powermac performance. :) Also, if the only jump in performance is the extremely slight jump to the Intel M processors, again, it is not worth it - I have used some my friend's Inspiron 9000 series Dell (with the ATI 9700/128 in it - the top 'entertainment' notebook, not the xps, gaming notebook) - and it is not much better than my pb, now a dinosaur. :/

disclaimer - i am not a gamer, and would imagine that my buddy's machine would out perform mine more in a gamining situation - i am talking jumpbacks and other moving backgrounds for presentations and video production.

Randall

Dec 15, 2005, 07:47 AM

I couldn't agree more - I am enduring with my 1ghz 12" pb until I see what appears in jan. if it is a ibook or a pb with a pentium - no way! I'll stick with this dude a little longer until the pb performace nears the powermac performance. :)People please. Yonah = Pentium M. Are you saying that you'll never buy a new Mac ever again because it's not PPC based? They've brainwashed you into hating Pentium somehow. Intel has come a loooong way. They no longer try to push for the higher clock rates as being better, they have taken a lesson from AMD, and Intel is currently focusing their strategy on getting more instructions done per clock cycle, as well as multiple cores, and by the end of 2006, 64-bits! To not buy because of Pentium is your choice, but is seems like the alternative to keep with the G4 caveman chip is just assenine. :rolleyes:

AidenShaw

Dec 15, 2005, 08:16 AM

and by the end of 2006, 64-bits!
Don't you mean

and by the end of 2006, 64-bits in a dual-core laptop chip!

All of the current desktop and server Intel chips are already 64-bit - only the laptop chips (where you're unlikely to need more than 4 GiB of RAM) are 32-bit.

Platform

Dec 15, 2005, 08:18 AM

People please. Yonah = Pentium M. Are you saying that you'll never buy a new Mac ever again because it's not PPC based? They've brainwashed you into hating Pentium somehow. Intel has come a loooong way. They no longer try to push for the higher clock rates as being better, they have taken a lesson from AMD, and Intel is currently focusing their strategy on getting more instructions done per clock cycle, as well as multiple cores, and by the end of 2006, 64-bits! To not buy because of Pentium is your choice, but is seems like the alternative to keep with the G4 caveman chip is just assenine. :rolleyes:

No one want a Pentium today...not even PC users...AMD ;)

The P4 is too hot too slow and old

Randall

Dec 15, 2005, 09:17 AM

No one want a Pentium today...not even PC users...AMD ;)

The P4 is too hot too slow and oldPentium 4 is completely different then Pentium M. Let's not confuse the 2 of them. Also, did you read the AnandTech: Intel Yonah Performance Preview (http://anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2627)? It looks very promising, and puts the Yonah dual core Pentium M head to head with some of the latest AMD 64-bit desktop processors and Yonah does give AMD a run for it's money. I told you Intel is changing for the better. Gone are the days were it was all about clock speed, marketing that more GHz is better.

Randall

Dec 15, 2005, 09:18 AM

Don't you mean

and by the end of 2006, 64-bits in a dual-core laptop chip!Yes of course it was implied. Thanks for clearing that up :p

strange days

Dec 15, 2005, 11:16 AM

Yes you are right about the APIs, and very right about the renaming of common applications. It is what it is though I suppose. :rolleyes: ;)

The good thing about OS X86 is that virtualPC will be much more of a real implementation, as opposed to an emulator. Spoofing APIs will not slow you down nearly as much as spoofing an entire architecture.

mmmh... i was wondering if someone with a higher technical background could give me an opinion on viruses and winbooze emulation on a Mac..

I mean, do you think we'll have to run anti-virus / spyware software in the PC emulator if we're going to use the internet from the PC side of the machine ?

...maybe some bastard hacker will even find a way to hack a Mac through malware run from a winbooze emulator... :eek:

...or am i just being paranoid and none of the above applies ? :rolleyes:

Randall

Dec 15, 2005, 11:19 AM

mmmh... i was wondering if someone with a higher technical background could give me an opinion on viruses and winbooze emulation on a Mac..

I mean, do you think we'll have to run anti-virus / spyware software in the PC emulator if we're going to use the internet from the PC side of the machine ?

...maybe some bastard hacker will even find a way to hack a Mac through malware run from a winbooze emulator... :eek:

...or am i just being paranoid and none of the above applies ? :rolleyes:If you run windows (emulated or otherwise) the risk for obtaining a virus is the same. Although it will only effect your windows applications. (or whichever applications the virus was written for). I suggest running AV software on any OS, especially Windows.

On a mac, there is not much of a need for AV software (no native OS X viruses yet). There are still MS word/excel macros that can effect your work just the same on any platform that runs these applications, and just because a virus is dorment on your system, doesn't mean you should ignore it and pass it along to your Windows burddies un-intensionally or otherwise. I recommend using ClamAV on OS X. Free, fast, and good. (I don't run it constantly in the background like I do with McAfee Enterprise on my Windows box) I run it stand-alone maybe once a month to clean house. I have found windows specific viruses on my mac before with this.

Platform

Dec 15, 2005, 06:12 PM

Pentium 4 is completely different then Pentium M. Let's not confuse the 2 of them. Also, did you read the AnandTech: Intel Yonah Performance Preview (http://anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2627)? It looks very promising, and puts the Yonah dual core Pentium M head to head with some of the latest AMD 64-bit desktop processors and Yonah does give AMD a run for it's money. I told you Intel is changing for the better. Gone are the days were it was all about clock speed, marketing that more GHz is better.

I know..I'm very impressed with the Yonah..want one :D

BlueRevolution

Dec 15, 2005, 07:07 PM

If you run windows (emulated or otherwise) the risk for obtaining a virus is the same. Although it will only effect your windows applications. (or whichever applications the virus was written for). I suggest running AV software on any OS, especially Windows.

I don't, because all I run on Windows is... uh... IE (for testing site designs only, I swear). oh, and ARSENAL Extended Power (http://www.tacticalsoft.com/), because it's old and primitive enough to run emulated. so if I get a virus mucking with one of my emulated PCs, I just delete the PC and reinstall. easy-peasy. personally I can't imagine relying on VPC for much more. if you're using it that much, build yourself a cheap one and use a KVM switch. saves you the indignity of seeing the "Welcome to Windblows XX" screen on a Mac. though, it also means you miss the wonderful moments like this:

http://xs59.xs.to/pics/05505/bsod2.jpg.xs.jpg (http://xs.to/xs.php?h=xs59&d=05505&f=bsod2.jpg)

I know..I'm very impressed with the Yohan..want one :D

Yohan, huh?

Randall

Dec 15, 2005, 07:37 PM

I don't, because all I run on Windows is... uh... IE (for testing site designs only, I swear). oh, and ARSENAL Extended Power (http://www.tacticalsoft.com/), because it's old and primitive enough to run emulated. so if I get a virus mucking with one of my emulated PCs, I just delete the PC and reinstall. easy-peasy. personally I can't imagine relying on VPC for much more. if you're using it that much, build yourself a cheap one and use a KVM switch. saves you the indignity of seeing the "Welcome to Windblows XX" screen on a Mac. though, it also means you miss the wonderful moments like this:

http://xs59.xs.to/pics/05505/bsod2.jpg.xs.jpg (http://xs.to/xs.php?h=xs59&d=05505&f=bsod2.jpg)

Yohan, huh?You can't possibly be using an emulated version of Windows XP Pro can you? I have not seen the infamous BSOD since Windows 98 third edition a.k.a. Windows Millenium Edition. Anyway about what you said, sure you could just delete the PC and reinstall, and that's great. When I was talking about getting viruses for windows, I ment that it doesn't matter if you're running VirtualPC or the real deal, you can still get one (only affecting Windows of course). While I don't see any reason to run a virus scanner on OS X (since no viruses exist for it as of yet) I do feel that an occasional scan with ClamAV or some sort of sweep for known threats should be in order every so often. While there are no viruses that effect the Mac, they can still lie dorment on your system, and could carry over to a windows system via email or network sharing, where it could cause real damage. Maybe it's just because I also use a PC, but I don't want to be a "carrier" for anything like that.

I don't justify using system resources on a virus scanner for OS X fulltime (running constantly in the background) but I do do a full system scan about once a month. I have had my Powerbook for 2 years, and I've found 2 Win32 based viruses on my system. It does happen, but very rarely. Anyway just thought I would clarify what I was talking about.

P.S. I'm sure that Platform was talking about Yonah, and not Yohan. :p

~Shard~

Dec 15, 2005, 07:39 PM

P.S. I'm sure that Platform was talking about Yonah, and not Yohan. :p

Either that, or he knows something we don't... ;)

AidenShaw

Dec 15, 2005, 08:56 PM

Saves you the indignity of seeing the "Welcome to Windblows XX" screen on a Mac. though, it also means you miss the wonderful moments like this:

http://xs59.xs.to/pics/05505/bsod2.jpg.xs.jpg (http://xs.to/xs.php?h=xs59&d=05505&f=bsod2.jpg)
Windows 98 blue screen - very appropriate for two weeks before 2006... Maybe I should post some images of OS 8 crashing and claim that OSX sux?

And, BTW, please spare yourself the indignity of using sophomoric, cutesy mis-names of Windows. "Windblows", "winbooze" and all the other misnames make you look stupid, not Windows.

Dignity is not a weakness....

BlueRevolution

Dec 16, 2005, 04:05 AM

You can't possibly be using an emulated version of Windows XP Pro can you? I have not seen the infamous BSOD since Windows 98 third edition a.k.a. Windows Millenium Edition.

if you look at the screenshot you will see that is indeed what I'm running. I have 98 and 2000 installed in VPC, since XP doesn't like being emulated. Or run with less than 1 GB of RAM on a real PC either in my experience.

Windows 98 blue screen - very appropriate for two weeks before 2006... Maybe I should post some images of OS 8 crashing and claim that OSX sux?

did I ever say anything to that effect? or did I not write the same post everyone read? Windows has come a long way since those days, and I don't think anyone would be in a forum like this without such an understanding. however, the classic BSOD is simply symbolic of issues with the operating system that I'm sure we can all agree still exist. or are you using a Mac because you prefer to spend large sums of money on computers?

I won't bother to respond to the second part of your post. I'm sure you weren't expecting me to.

strange days

Dec 16, 2005, 06:31 AM

Windows 98 blue screen - very appropriate for two weeks before 2006... Maybe I should post some images of OS 8 crashing and claim that OSX sux?

And, BTW, please spare yourself the indignity of using sophomoric, cutesy mis-names of Windows. "Windblows", "winbooze" and all the other misnames make you look stupid, not Windows.

Dignity is not a weakness....

hehe, i've been using Winpuke XP for a couple of years now, and i just had a BSOD a month ago; which is probably a good sign if i am to believe reports from Winshit 98 users...

...Aiden don't be mad, renaming Windows is just a little joke, right ? ;)

Randall

Dec 16, 2005, 07:00 AM

if you look at the screenshot you will see that is indeed what I'm running. I have 98 and 2000 installed in VPC, since XP doesn't like being emulated. Or run with less than 1 GB of RAM on a real PC either in my experience.This is not true, the minimum requirement for XP to run is 128 MB RAM, and the recommended amount is 256 MB RAM. I have 512 MB (SDRAM not the DDR2 stuff) and my PC runs beautifully. You shouldn't make fun of an OS because you don't know how to use it. Especially if you need to use it like you do.

hehe, i've been using Winpuke XP for a couple of years now, and i just had a BSOD a month ago; which is probably a good sign if i am to believe reports from Winshit 98 users...

...Aiden don't be mad, renaming Windows is just a little joke, right ? ;) As much as I admire your childish naming of Windows, The BSOD doesn't happen on XP unless you have absolutely no idea what you are doing. The NT kernel is just as stable as the XNU core of OS X. I would like to take this opportunity to post a screenshot of an OS X kernel panic, to put you in your place.
http://p3.hostingprod.com/@rsb195.com/k_panic.jpg

AidenShaw

Dec 16, 2005, 07:45 AM

if you look at the screenshot you will see that is indeed what I'm running. I have 98 and 2000 installed in VPC, since XP doesn't like being emulated. Or run with less than 1 GB of RAM on a real PC either in my experience.
I've run and do run XP in VMware (ESX/GSX/Wrkstn), Virtual Server, and Virtual PC (for Windows).

I've never had an issue with "XP doesn't like being emulated".

Is it true that XP won't run in Microsoft's own Virtual PC for Mac? Does everyone have this problem?

ewinemiller

Dec 16, 2005, 08:09 AM

I've run and do run XP in VMware (ESX/GSX/Wrkstn), Virtual Server, and Virtual PC (for Windows).

I've never had an issue with "XP doesn't like being emulated".

Is it true that XP won't run in Microsoft's own Virtual PC for Mac? Does everyone have this problem?

Nope, running it just fine on Virtual PC for Mac.

And for those that think XP needs a gig to run nice...

I use Virtual PC hosting XP on my Mac so I can run the source safe client (man I just wish someone would write one for the Mac), so I'm not doing a lot, but I turned off a couple of unused services and the eye candy, it's currently booted up with only 60.2 meg of used RAM. I only allocated 128 meg total to the virtual machine and it's never been a problem.

Sometimes when I load IE to test a web page...I go past 70 meg, egads!!

Platform

Dec 16, 2005, 09:29 AM

Either that, or he knows something we don't... ;)

I'm afraid not...it was just late :o

steelfist

Dec 16, 2005, 09:41 AM

Nope, running it just fine on Virtual PC for Mac.

And for those that think XP needs a gig to run nice...

I use Virtual PC hosting XP on my Mac so I can run the source safe client (man I just wish someone would write one for the Mac), so I'm not doing a lot, but I turned off a couple of unused services and the eye candy, it's currently booted up with only 60.2 meg of used RAM. I only allocated 128 meg total to the virtual machine and it's never been a problem.

Sometimes when I load IE to test a web page...I go past 70 meg, egads!!

damn nice. can you post of every service and kind of eye candy and other optimizations you did? 70 mb or ram for winodows xp? damn! :D

jocool5

Dec 16, 2005, 09:45 AM

HI all i just was on digg.com and found this disterbing article. however i hope it is wrong. The article on digg is at this link ---> http://derekpicone.blogsome.com/2005/12/16/no-intel-at-macworld/

Platform

Dec 16, 2005, 09:55 AM

HI all i just was on digg.com and found this disterbing article. however i hope it is wrong. The article on digg is at this link ---> http://derekpicone.blogsome.com/2005/12/16/no-intel-at-macworld/

MWSF......stevenote with nothing........hell no :D

jocool5

Dec 16, 2005, 09:58 AM

Platform

Dec 16, 2005, 10:01 AM

jocool5

Dec 16, 2005, 10:05 AM

Maybe people at apple are told to say this...:confused:
Maybe that means it will be bigger that ever. Or there are so many rumors that they don't want to be held to some high goals that others make for apple

Randall

Dec 16, 2005, 10:31 AM

yeah that is what i thought but i wanted to know if there was event the littlest bit of truth to that article. I think that the article is false as there were no big rumor people covering it like thinksecret.My personal opinion is that unless they start shipping the Macintels NOW (at MWSF this January) then there is just no way that the transition to x86 will be completed at the end of 2007. You need at least 2 years, and most likely longer, for an entire architecture conversion. There are many software packages out there that need time and lots of time to complete the transition do to extermely complex and integrated codebase that utilizes PPC. Sure Apple could wait until June to start, but this would be a big mistake IMO. The sooner the better, because the transition will not be devoid of all speedbumps, despite Apple's best effort for it to be so. Get the Intel based Macs out in the wild, because the more exposure it gets to the general public, the more time it has to transition. Developers with the DTK are already running OS X86 and porting like mad (with excellent speed increases in many cases according to articles I have read). The dual core Yonah release in January along with ATi's new PCIe mobile graphics card scheduled to be released then as well, all point to a bigtime portable release in January. There are too many things coming together at once for there not to be a "big supprise" at MWSF. This is just my 2 cents. Take it as you will. :)

Peace

Dec 16, 2005, 10:52 AM

MWSF......stevenote with nothing........hell no :D

I completely agree.If there were nothing really new to anounce Steve wouldn't do the keynote.
Remember Jobs was added as keynote speaker about a month ago.
I'm quit sure Apple is telling lower echelon workers nothing's happening in order to squash all the "near-correct" rumors..

If you don't think anything is going to be announced at MWSF check out the new floorplan for the expo :

http://www.macworldexpo.com/live/images/other/MWSF06_Floor_Plan_12-16.pdf

Apple has the whole center area almost.And Intel is NOT in that floorplan anywhere.

ewinemiller

Dec 16, 2005, 01:30 PM

damn nice. can you post of every service and kind of eye candy and other optimizations you did? 70 mb or ram for winodows xp? damn! :D

I disabled the following services:

Alerter
Clipbook
Fast User Switching Compatiblity
Human Interface Device Access
Messenger
Network DDE
Network DDE DSDM
Routing and Remote Access
Security Center
SSPD Discovery Service
Terminal Services
Windows Audio (also disabled virtual SB16 that Virtual PC emulates in the hardware section)
Windows Firewall/Internet Connection Sharing (ICS)

For eye candy I went to System Properties|Advanced tab|Performance options, set it on Custom, unchecked everything. I also went to Display Properties|Appearance tab|Effects, and turned off everything.

There's nothing in the Start Up folder and the only thing specified to start via the registry is the Virtual PC User service.

Now I wouldn't recommend running that config for everyone, there's no firewall (though it sits behind a hardware firewall with NAT), no AV, and some some of those services will be necessary for a normal workstation's needs, but for my limited use (Source Safe, test the occassional website which are known safe because I built them) it's slim, fast (enough), and reasonably safe.

steve_hill4

Dec 17, 2005, 07:06 AM

YES! :D I'm hoping so.

I'm expecting Apple would, in order to get the ball rolling for late developers in the transition to move over to x86 as soon as possible. As a WWDC member, I'd love to own an Intel PB than 'rent' an Intel G5 develop machine.

Here's to new Intel PowerBooks!
I like that thinking. It makes more sense to update the PowerBooks before the iBooks, (especially the 12" PB with perhaps a new 13.3" WS PB).

While Blu-Ray and other newer features are less likely to make an appearance, I would love to see a gig of ram on all PowerBooks, (with the iBook sticking at 512MB), solid PCI Express graphics, dual core Intel, brighter displays, (while keeping with the current type of screen), built in iSight and maybe one or two other minor modifications, (maybe Front Row and HDMI, to allow better connection to a flat panel TV, just imagine that, sticking with optical out too).