Intel's Napa Platform with Yonah

[MacRumors]

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

eWeek reports (http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1901460,00.asp) on Intel's new mobile platform called Napa, which was detailed yesterday to reporters.

According to Intel, the new laptop platform (Napa) which incorporates their dual-core Yonah processor will outperform their current laptops by 68%. Along with this will be a reduction in power consumption by 28%, which will extend battery life beyond 5 hours.

The chip benefits from a two-pronged assault on power usage, cutting amps by completing tasks faster and employing a new feature termed Dynamic Power Coordination, which allows its two cores to be power-managed independently, making it possible for one core to shut down while the other performs the heavy lifting.

Napa/Yonah is expected in 2006 and Intel is expecting over 230 laptop designs. Intel was reportedly (http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/business/13404030.htm) tight lipped, however, about whether or not Apple would adopt the entire platform. The expected release for Yonah is indeed January (http://www.cbronline.com/article_news.asp?guid=A751AF8D-9EF5-4B06-9B85-FA8A34D073C2) as rumored (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2005/12/20051211210033.shtml).

Yonah has been widely expected to be used by Apple in the first Intel Macs, also rumored to be released in January.

[Lacero]

:D All the more reasons I see Apple adopting the Yonahs for the upcoming PowerBooks.

"Maloney said the Napa platform has been shrunk over 30 percent since its initial design. The chip set will be 69 percent smaller, in terms of board space, than the original Centrino chip set."

Now, if we could see Apple adopting some of AMD's lower-priced dual-core offerings.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/prn/texas/3520799.html

[RJP31484]

That all sounds truly amazing

[twoodcc]

That all sounds truly amazing

yeah it does. january will be interesting ....

[Peace]

Dual-Core Yonah Powerbooks at MWSF

[FoxyKaye]

2006, the year of the (HD) laptop?

So, the Intel-based stuff is going to cost less, last longer, and potentially come with dual-core chips that feature a 68% improvement in speed (at least over previous Intel designs)? Wow, watch those used G4 iBook and Powerbook prices bottom out...

[LaMerVipere]

I'm more interested in what will be in the Rev. B Intel PowerBooks, since buying a Rev. A version just seems crazy to me. Problems and "issues" seem almost assured.

[GFLPraxis]

68% faster, 28% lower power consumption, lower price, dual core, HD screens (remember, ThinkSecret claims 1280x720 WXGA screens- that's 720p, which is HD), and the ability to boot Windows and/or run Windows apps through WINE?

Sign me up! :D



However, I bet someone, somewhere is going to find some way to rate this negative. They always do.

[AoWolf]

Everything is pointing to WWDC I can't wait hopes its the iBooks.

[hhlee]

68% faster, 28% lower power consumption, lower price, dual core, HD screens (remember, ThinkSecret claims 1280x720 WXGA screens- that's 720p, which is HD), and the ability to boot Windows and/or run Windows apps through WINE?

Sign me up! :D



However, I bet someone, somewhere is going to find some way to rate this negative. They always do.

shizza.... screw the fact that its rev a. i think i'm gonna need to sell my 15'' powerbuuk pronto!

[Darwin]

Bring it on :D

[tristan]

So the Intel iBook is going to smoke the G4 Powerbooks? That'll be interesting. 2006 is going to be a crazy year with lots of crazy rumors.:cool:

[Lacero]

Everything is pointing to WWDC I can't wait hopes its the iBooks.
I don't see it going into iBooks quite yet. Maybe next year? There's going to be a premium on the dual-core Yonahs, so it'll likely make its debut on the higher margined PowerBooks. Professionals need this power... not the sophomore in college surfing for music and pr0n.

Apple's got to offset the cost of development, plus Intel charges more per chip than IBM's PPC. (at least that's what has been reported).


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

[polinho]

Sorry, just want to clarify something...What makes you think that Powerbooks are to first ones, and not Ibooks? Haven't the rumors been more incisive on Ibooks? Really, I'm just trying to figure out why are you still talking about PB's...Did I miss something...?

[Peace]

So the Intel iBook is going to smoke the G4 Powerbooks? That'll be interesting. 2006 is going to be a crazy year with lots of crazy rumors.:cool:

That will be one heck of a marketing scheme tho..

I can see Jobs saying:

Here's the new iBook..Wait till you see the new Powerbook!

[840quadra]

In addition, the chip maker is working with Cisco Systems Inc. deliver network capabilities that can be easily deployed and managed.

I wonder if this is going to be a partial SOAC that can offload some of the old cisco logic board tasks to one chip? If this chip were to contain networking intelligence of a higher power, it could also mean possibility of faster copper (or fiber) interconnects, and or more localized processing, as opposed to having many chips on the logic board to do networking. If that were true, and installed in a Powermac or Xserve, users of clusters or other high bandwidth hogging systems could see major improvements in performance! (Okay I am reaching out).

[Koodauw]

I don't see it going into iBooks quite yet. Maybe next year? There's going to be a premium on the dual-core Yonahs, so it'll likely make its debut on the higher margined PowerBooks. Professionals need this power... not the sophomore in college surfing for music and pr0n.


You'd be surprised how much CPU power P2P takes up. We need that ish now!

[Randall]

Dual-Core Yonah Powerbooks at MWSF I can almost guarantee it. *chomps at bit* :D

You'd be surprised how much CPU power P2P takes up. We need that ish now! Try using bittorrent (not Azureus) for more CPU friendly file sharing. Transmission (http://transmission.m0k.org/) for OS X uses less then 3% CPU, and it's just as fast at downloading/seeding as Azureus, which tends to use close to 80% CPU in contrast.

So the Intel iBook is going to smoke the G4 Powerbooks? That'll be interesting. 2006 is going to be a crazy year with lots of crazy rumors.:cool: Any laptop that has a Yonah processor in it will smoke any G4. That is why it makes sense to replace all of the G4 laiden hardware with Intel at once. "Get the G4 out the door"

[york2600]

So now the question becomes: Do I want to be cheap and get an ibook with the single core Yonah or a PowerBook with a dual core. Dual 2Ghz in my lap would be pretty sweet.

It'll also be nice to have a 'Book named after my town. Perhaps Apple can give me a discount when it gets mailed to Napa ;)


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

eWeek reports (http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1901460,00.asp) on Intel's new mobile platform called Napa, which was detailed yesterday to reporters.

According to Intel, the new laptop platform (Napa) which incorporates their dual-core Yonah processor will outperform their current laptops by 68%. Along with this will be a reduction in power consumption by 28%, which will extend battery life beyond 5 hours.



Napa/Yonah is expected in 2006 and Intel is expecting over 230 laptop designs. Intel was reportedly (http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/business/13404030.htm) tight lipped, however, about whether or not Apple would adopt the entire platform. The expected release for Yonah is indeed January (http://www.cbronline.com/article_news.asp?guid=A751AF8D-9EF5-4B06-9B85-FA8A34D073C2) as rumored (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2005/12/20051211210033.shtml).

Yonah has been widely expected to be used by Apple in the first Intel Macs, also rumored to be released in January.

[Hattig]

I can see iBooks adopting the 1.5 or 1.66GHz dual-core Yonahs, whilst the Powerbook adopts the 1.83, 2.0 and 2.16GHz versions.

Given the performance increase (probably twice as fast per clock overall than a single core G4), and total lack of care from the PowerPC companies, Apple has no choice, it has to turn the PowerBook Intel sooner rather than later despite many of the third party pro applications not being intel-ised until late next year.

Which is a reversal on what I thought a couple of months ago, but then I thought Apple would be changing nearer June than January, and I thought they might hold out with a 7448 or that dual-core G4 until 2007 ...

[aaronsullivan]

Unless running PowerPC code on these things (Rosetta) has been vastly improved, it will be iBooks first. Steve said consumers first then professionals in that Intel keynote didn't he? I'm 80% sure he did.

Remember, it's going to take some time to get the big professional apps transitioned over to Universal binary so they can run at better than snail speeds on an mactel machine. Apple jumping the gun on the Intel transition makes it even more likely that most professional apps will still be stuck with PowerPC only code.

I have no idea how Apple marketing would handle it if the iBooks smoked the Powerbooks for in general computing, but it's pretty much assured that programs still running PowerPC code (like most every professional app) would still run quite a bit faster on even today's Powerbooks than on a smokin' fast mactel iBook.

It will be iBooks and Powerbooks, or just iBooks, but I'd be VERY surprised to see JUST the Powerbooks updated.

I'd say the tiny iBook reaching into broader market territory with a good price and lower speed is the most likely announcement along with a redesigned mac mini/media device and a big focus on Leopard because Vista is now set to mid 2006 and Steve said they'd meet the release date.

[Randall]

So now the question becomes: Do I want to be cheap and get an ibook with the single core Yonah or a PowerBook with a dual core. Dual 2Ghz in my lap would be pretty sweet.

It'll also be nice to have a 'Book named after my town. Perhaps Apple can give me a discount when it gets mailed to Napa ;) I personally would go for a dual core Yonah Powerbook (as soon as one exists of course :p ) I think it will be well worth the wait. All kinds of speed and power improvements are on thier way. This is a very exciting time for the mobile computing world.

[Randall]

Unless running PowerPC code on these things (Rosetta) has been vastly improved, it will be iBooks first. Steve said consumers first then professionals in that Intel keynote didn't he? I'm 80% sure he did.

Remember, it's going to take some time to get the big professional apps transitioned over to Universal binary so they can run at better than snail speeds on an mactel machine. Apple jumping the gun on the Intel transition makes it even more likely that most professional apps will still be stuck with PowerPC only code.

I have no idea how Apple marketing would handle it if the iBooks smoked the Powerbooks for in general computing, but it's pretty much assured that programs still running PowerPC code (like most every professional app) would still run quite a bit faster on even today's Powerbooks than on a smokin' fast mactel iBook.

It will be iBooks and Powerbooks, or just iBooks, but I'd be VERY surprised to see JUST the Powerbooks updated.

I'd say the tiny iBook reaching into broader market territory with a good price and lower speed is the most likely announcement along with a redesigned mac mini/media device and a big focus on Leopard because Vista is now set to mid 2006 and Steve said they'd meet the release date.
It would be a crime against humanity to make the iBooks run faster then the Powerbooks, regardless of the PPC emulation factor. That is why it's my opinion that they will release both. Let's face it, anything with a G4 in it is screaming for an upgrade.

[gnasher729]

2006, the year of the (HD) laptop?

So, the Intel-based stuff is going to cost less...

Excuse me, where did you read "cost less"?

Just because there are plenty of cheap laptops with cheap Intel celery processors around, doesn't mean that their high end chipsets will be cheap.

[crazydreaming]

So does this mean that when deciding between an apple or a windows laptop, the Mac will finally outperform the windows laptop? Instead of just buying mac for form factor and OS X, they might actually perform better?


...I'm still happy with my Powerbook... but that might change soon :mad:, but I knew this was coming. I'll wait for the quadruple core powerbooks :D

[Bengt77]

Now, surely, that must mean PowerBook G5 next Tuesday!

[Randall]

Excuse me, where did you read "cost less"?

Just because there are plenty of cheap laptops with cheap Intel celery processors around, doesn't mean that their high end chipsets will be cheap.LOL glad to see I'm not the only one who refers to the Celeron processor line as celery. I think that one of the reasons that people assume Intel processors are cheap is because that there is such an abundence of them. This is a common misconception, as you said. Any top of the line processor will be $$$ expensive. I hope the dual core Yonahs will match all of the hype and then some. :cool:


So does this mean that when deciding between an apple or a windows laptop, the Mac will finally outperform the windows laptop? Instead of just buying mac for form factor and OS X, they might actually perform better?

...I'm still happy with my Powerbook... but that might change soon :mad:, but I knew this was coming. I'll wait for the quadruple core powerbooks :DI know you're joking, but quad core is a definate possibility for the future. :)

[hvfsl]

To all those that are saying Apple will introduce Intel iBooks first, well that will mean the ibooks will be faster than the G4 PowerBooks (when using native Intel apps vs native PPC in the PowerBook). So I think the PowerBooks are going to have to be first.

Also we are not going to see dual-core cpus in the iBooks, it will be single core only. Apple needs something to differentiate between them.

Lastly, when Apple said they would switch the professional line last, they were talking about the PowerMac G5, which is plenty of power at the moment.

[Yvan256]

So, the Intel-based stuff is going to cost less, last longer, and potentially come with dual-core chips that feature a 68% improvement in speed (at least over previous Intel designs)? Wow, watch those used G4 iBook and Powerbook prices bottom out...

Talking of which... the PowerBook in my sig. is now for sale. :D

[Yvan256]

That will be one heck of a marketing scheme tho..

I can see Jobs saying:

Here's the new iBook..Wait till you see the new Powerbook!

Well, what if Yonah can be used in a dual processors configuration?

"This is the new iBook... That's right, it's dual-core. Imagine the PowerBook."

[Randall]

Now, surely, that must mean PowerBook G5 next Tuesday! Yes, the Powerbook G5. a.k.a. "The Space Heater" :p

To all those that are saying Apple will introduce Intel iBooks first, well that will mean the ibooks will be faster than the G4 PowerBooks (when using native Intel apps vs native PPC in the PowerBook). So I think the PowerBooks are going to have to be first.

Also we are not going to see dual-core cpus in the iBooks, it will be single core only. Apple needs something to differentiate between them.

Lastly, when Apple said they would switch the professional line last, they were talking about the PowerMac G5, which is plenty of power at the moment.Couldn't have said it better myself. The line between iBook and Powerbook has gotten very blurred in the recent months, about all that seperates them at the moment is the brushed aluminum casing. I think that single cores go to the ibook, and of course the dual cores to the Powerbook. That said, I think that all G4s will be gone in January. the mini, ibook, and powerbook all receive intel in January.

On a side note, what does Apple plan on calling the Yonah line? G6 makes no sense since it's not from that PPC line. Does intel get to name it?

[Hattig]

Talking of which... the PowerBook in my sig. is now for sale. :D
I'll give you a dollar for it. If you upgrade it to 10.4.3 :p

[rosalindavenue]

2006, the year of the (HD) laptop?

So, the Intel-based stuff is going to cost less, last longer, and potentially come with dual-core chips that feature a 68% improvement in speed (at least over previous Intel designs)? Wow, watch those used G4 iBook and Powerbook prices bottom out...

No, the intel processors are going to cost more-- a lot more.

"The PowerPC G4 in that machine has a typical volume price of around $72, or about 10% of the selling price for the machine. In comparison people like Asus, Quanta and Hon Hai Precision (who make Dell, HP, and IBM gear) pay Intel on the order of $240 per unit for the two year old, 32bit, 1.8Ghz Pentium M predecessor to the "Yonah" line"

$72 < $240 (and thats the price for a 2 year old Pentium M)

Source for the above quote (http://blogs.zdnet.com/Murphy/?p=479)

[yoak]

Looks like I ´ll be in a position to update some hardware this winter, so this is exciting. A real POWER book could get me to buy another laptop instead of an iMac, as portability is key to me.
It will be xmas twice this winter:D

[jdechko]

Come on Dual Core Yonah PowerBook. Man, I'm excited. I'm sure that Apple's first Intel-based PowerBooks will be sweet.

$72 < $240 (and thats the price for a 2 year old Pentium M)
But Apple already has pretty high (it seems) margins, so we hopefully shouldn't a dramatic increase in computer prices. Hopefully, Apple will absorb some of the cost and we will pay a little more (maybe $100/150).

[Randall]

No, the intel processors are going to cost more-- a lot more.

"The PowerPC G4 in that machine has a typical volume price of around $72, or about 10% of the selling price for the machine. In comparison people like Asus, Quanta and Hon Hai Precision (who make Dell, HP, and IBM gear) pay Intel on the order of $240 per unit for the two year old, 32bit, 1.8Ghz Pentium M predecessor to the "Yonah" line"

$72 < $240 (and thats the price for a 2 year old Pentium M)

Source for the above quote (http://blogs.zdnet.com/Murphy/?p=479)
Since when is $74 dollars 10% of $2,000??? Apples margines on the G4 notebooks are outrageous. They're going to have to take a hit on those astronomical margines. They'll still turn a profit, just not as dramatic. They'll make up for this by selling boatloads of these babies.

[SiliconAddict]

current laptops by 68%.

Did anyone else just get turned on? :D

Damn. No cold showers at work :(

[Randall]

Come on Dual Core Yonah PowerBook. Man, I'm excited. I'm sure that Apple's first Intel-based PowerBooks will be sweet. You're not kiddin'. Just the system bus speed is getting me excited. Powerbook G4 = 167MHz... Intel Powerbook = 667MHz. Oh man it's going to be sweet!!

[Lacero]

Did anyone else just get turned on? :D
Just the thought of 8+ hours battery life has me salivating. :p


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

[ibook30]

There goes our chance to get a powerbook with a built in toaster...

[GFLPraxis]

Excuse me, where did you read "cost less"?

Just because there are plenty of cheap laptops with cheap Intel celery processors around, doesn't mean that their high end chipsets will be cheap.

One of the ThinkSecret articles said that the new iBooks may have a lower price point.

[SiliconAddict]

One of the ThinkSecret articles said that the new iBooks may have a lower price point.


TS's record has't exactly been great since MWSF '05....I wouldn't take what they have to say as fact at this point.

[Trimix]

68% faster, 28% lower power consumption, lower price, dual core, HD screens (remember, ThinkSecret claims 1280x720 WXGA screens- that's 720p, which is HD), and the ability to boot Windows and/or run Windows apps through WINE?

Sign me up! :D



However, I bet someone, somewhere is going to find some way to rate this negative. They always do.


sign me up too
:rolleyes:

[~Shard~]

Now, surely, that must mean PowerBook G5 next Tuesday!

Please, don't be that guy... :rolleyes: :cool:

I can't wait to see how Apple implements this technology, and what their strategy will be in terms of evolution and timing. iBooks right away? Or PowerBooks? What will happen at WWDC? When will the PowerBooks go Merom? So many exciting questions and possibilities. :)

[aswitcher]

which will extend battery life beyond 5 hours.


Now thats pretty exciting. :)

[otter-boy]

Unless running PowerPC code on these things (Rosetta) has been vastly improved, it will be iBooks first. Steve said consumers first then professionals in that Intel keynote didn't he? I'm 80% sure he did.

snip

Steve Jobs did not say that consumer computers would go first. That was an early guess by analysts based on the time-table for the conversion of pro apps and the performance of Rosetta at the time.

The desktop G5s still seem like they will stay around for a while--the performance gap between a G4 @ 1.5 GHz and a quad G5 @ 2.5 GHz is still too big to get across with the Yonahs. It at least appears that the PowerMacs have the power to outclass Intel processors right now (especially since Intel's consumer processors haven't been able to be in multiprocessor computers yet--their Xeons can but Pentiums can't).

The computers using G4 processors are a different matter. With them, the Yonahs might provide a sizeable performance boost. Given the similar speeds for processors between the PowerBooks and iBooks, I see either both going over to Intel at the same time (iBook single-core and Powerbook dual-core) or the Powerbook going first. Even in emulation, it seems that the Yonah will outperform current G4s.

I think the Mac Mini will switch over early, too; perhaps this early switch is the reason that it has not been officially upgraded though Apple continues to configure the Mac Minis with different processors.

[FoxyKaye]

Excuse me, where did you read "cost less"?
Well, for starters, the Register ran this weeks ago: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/11/17/apple_intel_ibook/
There was also something on ThinkSecret, but I can't find it right now.

And, I'm willing to bet that a low-end Intel iBook is still going to be faster than the current generation of G4s.

[Edit]: The Register and ThinkSecret reports are the same. Not that they're reliable, but I'm also going to speculate that it makes sense - Apple's stuff costs more, they have to lower prices to compete.

[SiliconAddict]

Hmmm Now all I need to do is create a script to reload the store.apple.com once every 10 seconds and automate the purchase of a dual core 15" PowerBook.

If 15" PowerBook bling on http://store.apple.com/ then click buy else reload page.

:D

[LaMerVipere]

To all those that are saying Apple will introduce Intel iBooks first, well that will mean the ibooks will be faster than the G4 PowerBooks (when using native Intel apps vs native PPC in the PowerBook). So I think the PowerBooks are going to have to be first.

Also we are not going to see dual-core cpus in the iBooks, it will be single core only. Apple needs something to differentiate between them.

Lastly, when Apple said they would switch the professional line last, they were talking about the PowerMac G5, which is plenty of power at the moment.

I agree, it would make the most sense to have iBooks single-core and PowerBooks dual-core. (assuming both lines will still be called iBooks and PowerBooks after they go Intel) :cool:

[Randall]

The computers using G4 processors are a different matter. With them, the Yonahs might provide a sizeable performance boost. Given the similar speeds for processors between the PowerBooks and iBooks, I see either both going over to Intel at the same time (iBook single-core and Powerbook dual-core) or the Powerbook going first. Even in emulation, it seems that the Yonah will outperform current G4s.Bingo. The gains from Yonah dual core could be so dramatic that it's worth switching over now. This decision should depend heavily on how well Rosetta on a dual core Yonah Powerbook compares to a G4 PPC Powerbook. If the difference is negligable, then there is no reason not to immeadiately switch the Powerbook line to x86.

[SiliconAddict]

Yah know what makes the upcoming PowerBooks even more sweeter? Its not the Intelness inside. Its not OS X. Its not dual core goodness. Its not the design. It's the fact that because of my 100$ Microsoft settlement check (http://www.microsoftminnesotasettlement.com/) they will be paying for a portion of a PowerBook. OK a small portion but a portion nontheless. Life is good. :D

[kainjow]

I can't wait to see the new PowerBook's design. Should be fantastic.

[otter-boy]

Bingo. The gains from Yonah dual core could be so dramatic that it's worth switching over now. This decision should depend heavily on how well Rosetta on a dual core Yonah Powerbook compares to a G4 PPC Powerbook. If the difference is negligable, then there is no reason not to immeadiately switch the Powerbook line to x86.

I would venture to say that even if performance is flat against the G4 running code through Rosetta that Apple will make the switch sooner rather than later. I think there are three reasons that this would still be advantageous to Apple: the switch to Intel will provide marketing buzz, it will give developers a final MacIntel box to code and test on, and the computers will continue to feel faster as code is updated to native X86 and even as Rosetta continues to be improved.

There are few good reasons to not switch over unless the processors perform noticeably slower, they cost much more, or there are compatibility problems.

[Randall]

I can't wait to see the new PowerBook's design. Should be fantastic.I hope that they keep the outside relatively the same. Why mess with perfection? It has got to be the most solid and well built laptop I have ever seen. Apple please don't change the outside. :o

[digitalbiker]

To all those that are saying Apple will introduce Intel iBooks first, well that will mean the ibooks will be faster than the G4 PowerBooks (when using native Intel apps vs native PPC in the PowerBook). So I think the PowerBooks are going to have to be first.

I don't think Apple is concerned with the relationship of the old PPC line to the new Intel line. They may even eliminate the ibook /PowerBook names to alleviate this comparison.

I think Apple will just release an Intel based portable and let the specs fall where they may. They will probably continue to sell PPC ibooks / PowerBooks even while new intel laptops are released. Eventually they will slowly eliminate the PPC laptops as they slowly introduce new intel designs.

There will be users who still want PPC based laptops even after the new intels are introduced. The reasons might be; Pro software that won't run in rosetta, Classic apps that won't run on x86 OS X, or just because they don't want to be rev. A owners of an all new hardware, all new OS, all new software system.

[SiliconAddict]

I hope that they keep the outside relatively the same. Why mess with perfection? It has got to be the most solid and well built laptop I have ever seen. Apple please don't change the outside. :o

I just hope they make it a little more scratch resistant. Everyone I’ve talked to who owns one says the PowerBook attracts scratches like a magnet unless you are uber careful with the system. Not expecting the thing to be bullet proof but make it solid enough that an occasional bump or hit isn’t going to dent it or scratch it.

[tristan]

I hope that they keep the outside relatively the same. Why mess with perfection? It has got to be the most solid and well built laptop I have ever seen. Apple please don't change the outside. :o

I think the TiBook looks better from the outside, and the AlBook looks better when open. Maybe they can come up with some cool combination.

[vmardian]

I just hope they make it a little more scratch resistant. Everyone I’ve talked to who owns one says the PowerBook attracts scratches like a magnet unless you are uber careful with the system. Not expecting the thing to be bullet proof but make it solid enough that an occasional bump or hit isn’t going to dent it or scratch it.

Mine has no scratches and I wouldn't consider myself to be overly protective of it. 10 months old.

[SiliconAddict]

Mine has no scratches and I wouldn't consider myself to be overly protective of it. 10 months old.

huh. Then I guess my friends are using their Macs as Frisbees. ;) :)

[d_and_n5000]

ok, that's it, I wanna know who those 6 people who voted negative are.:mad: Anyone wanna fess up? You, over there, did you vote negative for this story?!?

[otter-boy]

I just hope they make it a little more scratch resistant. Everyone I’ve talked to who owns one says the PowerBook attracts scratches like a magnet unless you are uber careful with the system. Not expecting the thing to be bullet proof but make it solid enough that an occasional bump or hit isn’t going to dent it or scratch it.

I've had my PowerBook for over 6 months, and I carry it with me to work and the coffee shop almost every day. I can't find a scratch on it. My wife's iBook, now that thing has some scratches on it.

The only aesthetic thing I don't like about the current PowerBook is the shininess of it--I would prefer a more muted brushed-aluminum.


huh. Then I guess my friends are using their Macs as Frisbees.

Tell them to send one my way :D

[ZLurker]

Just the thought of 8+ hours battery life has me salivating. :p


Here's to the Crazy Ones http://forums.macrumors.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=35452 (http://www.uriah.com/apple-qt/movies/think-different.mov)
MMMMMMmmmmmmmmm
Me too!!
Amazing how much i would like better battery life...

[digitalbiker]

There are few good reasons to not switch over unless the processors perform noticeably slower, they cost much more, or there are compatibility problems.

Well it is a given that there will be compatibility problems considering that this is x86 vs PPC. Also the processor will definitely cost much, much more. The G4 PPC is a very inexpensive processor, the new Yonah will initially be Intels flagship processor and cost a pretty penny.

Also for those who think Apple will have to bring down their prices in order to compete in the x86 marketplace, don't kid yourself.

The one thing you can count on besides death & taxes is that Apple products will have a high entry cost. Apple has never made an inexpensive anything. The Apple brand is such that they represent the best and you are going to have to pay for it.

[danvdr]

Looks like we finally hit "the rumor" for MWSF '06. A Napa in every pot.

I'm guessing:
MacMini: celeron/Pent. M; available Jan.
iBook: Pent. M; available Jan
Powerbook: Yonah/Napa; available Feb/Mar.
Apple will take the sales hit on PB's for a couple months to see how Intel design works on the lower models.

[Randall]

Well it is a given that there will be compatibility problems considering that this is x86 vs PPC. Also the processor will definitely cost much, much more. The G4 PPC is a very inexpensive processor, the new Yonah will initially be Intels flagship processor and cost a pretty penny.

Also for those who think Apple will have to bring down their prices in order to compete in the x86 marketplace, don't kid yourself.

The one thing you can count on besides death & taxes is that Apple products will have a high entry cost. Apple has never made an inexpensive anything. The Apple brand is such that they represent the best and you are going to have to pay for it.This is a very good point. I agree that I just don't see Apple's prices coming down simply because they are using the x86 architecture. These are highly integrated software and hardware machines we're talking about here, and that is just one of the reasons that Macs are of superior quality.

I also on the other hand do not see a huge jump up in prices for the consumer either though. Apple's margins were incredible for their late model G4 Powerbooks, because as you said, the G4 is quite cheap to manufacture. There will have to be some middle ground where Apple will meet with the consumers. They just can't expect those huge margins on their hardware anymore.

[Randall]

Looks like we finally hit "the rumor" for MWSF '06. A Napa in every pot.

I'm guessing:
MacMini: celeron/Pent. M; available Jan.
iBook: Pent. M; available Jan
Powerbook: Yonah/Napa; available Feb/Mar.
Apple will take the sales hit on PB's for a couple months to see how Intel design works on the lower models.

OS X x86 requires SSE3... hence there will be no old Dothan pentium M's. These will all be Yonah based pentium M's.

[GregA2]

I know you're joking, but quad core is a definate possibility for the future. :)

Tom's Hardware has an interesting article about Intel's future CPU roadmap, which mentions not only quad-cores, but EIGHT CORE CPUs on the horizon! :eek:

http://www.tomshardware.com/2005/12/04/top_secret_intel_processor_plans_uncovered/

[danvdr]

OS X x86 requires SSE3... hence there will be no old Dothan pentium M's. These will all be Yonah based intels.

I stand (happily) corrected.

Can someone give me a idea of what SSE3 is or where to find info about it.

Addendum: Thanks to Randall--see note 2 posts down

[Randall]

Tom's Hardware has an interesting article about Intel's future CPU roadmap, which mentions not only quad-cores, but EIGHT CORE CPUs on the horizon! :eek:

http://www.tomshardware.com/2005/12/04/top_secret_intel_processor_plans_uncovered/
Well at least they are learning that in the meantime of solving the processing limitations of trying to go smaller then 65nm, that they can use multiple cores to compute in parallel and get the job done faster. Multiple cores with power management will be a great leap forward for computing. :cool:

[Randall]

I stand (happily) corrected.

Can someone give me a idea of what SSE3 is or where to find info about it.SSE3 is the third generation of the SSE instruction set for the Intel x86 architecture. SSE stands for Streaming SIMD Extensions, which started with Pentium III. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streaming_SIMD_Extensions and here for SSE3 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SSE3

Another good place to learn about SSE3 is http://www.intel.com/technology/itj/2004/volume08issue01/art01_microarchitecture/p06_sse.htm. I know that it's confusing, but the bottom line is that these are instruction sets that help speed up processing, which is always a good thing.

[digitalbiker]

OS X x86 requires SSE3... hence there will be no old Dothan pentium M's. These will all be Yonah based pentium M's.

You are mistaken here. Aiden Shaw has pointed out many times how Apple instructs developers to code for SSE2. In fact, that was the principle reason most people expected Dothan based macminis or ibooks to be the first intel OS X hardware.

[Randall]

You are mistaken here. Aiden Shaw has pointed out many times how Apple instructs developers to code for SSE2. In fact, that was the principle reason most people expected Dothan based macminis or ibooks to be the first intel OS X hardware.
I stand corrected then. I was wrongly under the impression that OS X x86 requires SSE3 instruction sets. I believe I was told this by somebody else in these forums, and I should have verified it.

[mactim]

You can't use the developer transistion kit as proof of what the final requirements of OSX86 are. Apple's developer pages are asking developers to target SSE2 only. To me that suggests that Dotham based iBooks / MacMinis are highly likely.

OS X x86 requires SSE3... hence there will be no old Dothan pentium M's. These will all be Yonah based pentium M's.

[mactim]

OSX86 for the DTK does require SSE3.
It also requires a BIOS.
But we don't expect the released version to have these requirements.

I stand corrected then. I was wrongly under the impression that OS X x86 requires SSE3 instruction sets. I believe I was told this by somebody else in these forums, and I should have verified it.

[Randall]

You can't use the developer transistion kit as proof of what the final requirements of OSX86 are. Apple's developer pages are asking developers to target SSE2 only. To me that suggests that Dotham based iBooks / MacMinis are highly likely.This would make more sense, as Apple would have had much more time to test these chips, rather then the Yonah chips, which have only been availbe for testing since April as far as I know.

[mactim]

Yes this is very sensible (I despair at all the 'dual-core Yonah' iBook suggestions).

Looks like we finally hit "the rumor" for MWSF '06. A Napa in every pot.

I'm guessing:
MacMini: celeron/Pent. M; available Jan.
iBook: Pent. M; available Jan
Powerbook: Yonah/Napa; available Feb/Mar.
Apple will take the sales hit on PB's for a couple months to see how Intel design works on the lower models.

[ShnikeJSB]

I for one am waiting for the Merom-based laptops. It's going to be a completely different architechture (Yonah is still based off of the Pentium-M), and it will be 64-bit (Yonah is still 32-bit), as well as dual-core. It will also run a slightly faster system bus (667 mhz, versus 533 Yonah), and have 2-4mb of L2 cache...

Yeah, Merom will RAPE Yonah... Expected Q4-2006.

Damn straight...

[Randall]

I for one am waiting for the Merom-based laptops. It's going to be a completely different architechture (Yonah is still based off of the Pentium-M), and it will be 64-bit (Yonah is still 32-bit), as well as dual-core. It will also run a slightly faster system bus (667 mhz, versus 533 Yonah), and have 2-4mb of L2 cache PER CORE...

Yeah, Merom will RAPE Yonah... Expected Q4-2006.

Damn straight... Umm I could be wrong but I believe that the high end Yonahs do have a 667MHz system bus.

[mactim]

I suspect that OSX will be predominately 32-bit for some time, given all the 32-bit x86 hardware yet to be released. Thus the advantages of a Merom chip reduce to a mere speed bump (and this is mainly in the FP/SSE area).

I for one am waiting for the Merom-based laptops. It's going to be a completely different architechture (Yonah is still based off of the Pentium-M), and it will be 64-bit (Yonah is still 32-bit), as well as dual-core. It will also run a slightly faster system bus (667 mhz, versus 533 Yonah), and have 2-4mb of L2 cache PER CORE...

Yeah, Merom will RAPE Yonah... Expected Q4-2006.

Damn straight...

[Photorun]

Sorry, just want to clarify something...What makes you think that Powerbooks are to first ones, and not Ibooks? Haven't the rumors been more incisive on Ibooks? Really, I'm just trying to figure out why are you still talking about PB's...Did I miss something...?

Glad you're paying attention and welcome to Macrumors polinho, land where Powerbook whiners outstrip the average folk almost 2:1!

They probably would put the Intel in the iBook first, that makes the most sense to all but the delusional few who kept saying the G5 was around the corner. The performance hit for PPC apps using Rosetta may be pretty hefty and only the consumer apps will be ready at first to work on Intel free of it. Hence the consumer line is the logical first to get the Intel chips, only then followed by the professional models later as more of the big actual pro apps (Macromedia, Adobe, etc.) get ported to Intel to work natively, by then Powerbooks would be in the pipeline, but not a moment sooner.

[Randall]

I suspect that OSX will be predominately 32-bit for some time, given all the 32-bit x86 hardware yet to be released. Thus the advantages of a Merom chip reduce to a mere speed bump (and this is mainly in the FP/SSE area). Is OS X not already both 32 and 64 bit? I was under the impression that starting with Tiger it would be 64 bit compatible, so that the G5s could take advantage.

[mactim]

Yes it does according to many sites: http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=26879
ShnikeJSB is most likely wrong.
I can't believe all the misinformation that gets spread about on this forum.
It takes *seconds* to check facts using google.

Umm I could be wrong but I believe that the high end Yonahs do have a 667MHz system bus.

[BornAgainMac]

Apple should replace all G4 products with Intel and the iMac G5 should go Intel. Keep Xserve and the Powermac with G5s for now if they are faster.

[Randall]

Glad you're paying attention and welcome to Macrumors polinho, land where Powerbook whiners outstrip the average folk almost 2:1!

They probably would put the Intel in the iBook first, that makes the most sense to all but the delusional few who kept saying the G5 was around the corner. The performance hit for PPC apps using Rosetta may be pretty hefty and only the consumer apps will be ready at first to work on Intel free of it. Hence the consumer line is the logical first to get the Intel chips, only then followed by the professional models later as more of the big actual pro apps (Macromedia, Adobe, etc.) get ported to Intel to work natively, by then Powerbooks would be in the pipeline, but not a moment sooner. Did you get the memo? Macromedia is pwned by Adobe. It will be interesting to see what stays, gets added, or goes away for Adobe CS3. And hopefully that will be x86 native as well.

[Val-kyrie]

To all those that are saying Apple will introduce Intel iBooks first, well that will mean the ibooks will be faster than the G4 PowerBooks (when using native Intel apps vs native PPC in the PowerBook). So I think the PowerBooks are going to have to be first.

Also we are not going to see dual-core cpus in the iBooks, it will be single core only. Apple needs something to differentiate between them.

Lastly, when Apple said they would switch the professional line last, they were talking about the PowerMac G5, which is plenty of power at the moment.

I agree, it would make the most sense to have iBooks single-core and PowerBooks dual-core. (assuming both lines will still be called iBooks and PowerBooks after they go Intel) :cool:

Unless Apple uses the worthless Dothan chip, there will be no single core Yonahs. Single core Yonahs will not be available until April, according to Intel's timeline. The later release of single cores has already been reported on PC sites.

[shawnce]

OS X x86 requires SSE3... hence there will be no old Dothan pentium M's. These will all be Yonah based pentium M's.

Nope it only requires SSE2 and SSE3 is stated as being an optional item for the Macintosh platform, in other words don't depend on SSE3 existing when developing.

[Randall]

Unless Apple uses the worthless Dothan chip, there will be no single core Yonahs. Single core Yonahs will not be available until April, according to Intel's timeline. The later release of single cores has already been reported on PC sites.The Powerbooks will most definately carry the dual core Yonah's, but It's starting to look like (since SSE3 is not required by OS X x86) that Dothan may rear it's ugly head in the mini and/or ibook.

[mactim]

Tiger PPC has only limited 64-bit support, the advantage in PPC land is really just an increased address space (>4GB). But EM64T versus IA32 comparison is very different. The increased registers in EM64T give many types of code a significant performance boost. It's a shame that Apple couldn't start out with EM64T. But Intel isn't ready and OSX86 has likely been IA32 for the last 5 years.

Is OS X not already both 32 and 64 bit? I was under the impression that starting with Tiger it would be 64 bit compatible, so that the G5s could take advantage.

[ShnikeJSB]

Unless Apple uses the worthless Dothan chip, there will be no single core Yonahs. Single core Yonahs will not be available until April, according to Intel's timeline. The later release of single cores has already been reported on PC sites.

Whoah... Whoah whoah whoah... WHOAH!

Dothan is NOT worthless! I have been running a 2.13GHz Dothan since May, and it is PLENTY fast! If it was in an iBook, people would NOT be complaining, believe me!

[Val-kyrie]

OS X x86 requires SSE3... hence there will be no old Dothan pentium M's. These will all be Yonah based pentium M's.

How do you reconcile this with the fact that developers have been told to code for SSE2? (if I remember Aiden Shaw's previous posts correctly)

[Randall]

How do you reconcile this with the fact that developers have been told to code for SSE2? (if I remember Aiden Shaw's previous posts correctly)Oh my lord. I have already retracted that statement if you RTFT. (read the ****** thread). I got confused with the developer kit requiring SSE3. I appoligize once again.

[TaKashMoney]

If Intel ibooks get a celery M, I might have to throw a tantrum. Since single core yonahs are expected later than dual core, its hard to imagine an earlier release of consumer lappers with single core yonahs before the release of power dual cores. My prediction is a combo of the ibook and power lines into a single intel line, with the most portable laptops getting the slower dual core processors. And speed bumps as you gain in size. After all- its been pretty clear lately how limited apple is with its 12 inch enclosure... This way, no more separation of i and power. Of course for this to work they would also need a more robust BTO option list, to satisfy both the power hungry and the money concious.

Another option as someone has suggested, is Jobs announcing the dual core ibook with powerbooks blowing even those out the water. One more thing just seems too far off. I can't wait.

[generik]

Could the $200 rebate offer for PBs on Amazon.com be a hint of anything? :rolleyes:

[shawnce]

Is OS X not already both 32 and 64 bit? I was under the impression that starting with Tiger it would be 64 bit compatible, so that the G5s could take advantage.

Mac OS X 10.2.8 (and related Xcode / gcc) presented the ability use 64 bit general purpose math in an process when on G5 processors.

Mac OS X 10.4 (and related Xcode / gcc) presented the ability to use 64 but general purpose math when on G5 processors and additionally allow processes that link only against libSystem (no GUI, etc.) to use 64 bit addressing when on a G5 (give access to a 64b virtual address space, a HUGE address space).

Also note since the existence of G5 systems the virtual memory subsystem in Mac OS X has had the ability to work with greater then 32 bit physical addresses (starting with 10.2.8). This allows G5s to have more then 4 GB of physical RAM which is shared by all running applications and/or file cache (universal buffer cache).

[Randall]

If Intel ibooks get a celery M, I might have to throw a tantrum. Since single core yonahs are expected later than dual core, its hard to imagine an earlier release of consumer lappers with single core yonahs before the release of power dual cores. My prediction is a combo of the ibook and power lines into a single intel line, with the most portable laptops getting the slower dual core processors. And speed bumps as you gain in size. After all- its been pretty clear lately how limited apple is with its 12 inch enclosure... This way, no more separation of i and power. Of course for this to work they would also need a more robust BTO option list, to satisfy both the power hungry and the money concious.

Another option as someone has suggested, is Jobs announcing the dual core ibook with powerbooks blowing even those out the water. One more thing just seems too far off. I can't wait.
Upon revealing that SSE3 is not required by OS X x86, then I will predict:

January...
mini: Dothan
ibook: Dothan
Powerbook: dual core Yonah

June...
mini: Dothan
ibook: single core Yonah
Powerbook: dual core Yonah

[generik]

Glad you're paying attention and welcome to Macrumors polinho, land where Powerbook whiners outstrip the average folk almost 2:1!

They probably would put the Intel in the iBook first, that makes the most sense to all but the delusional few who kept saying the G5 was around the corner. The performance hit for PPC apps using Rosetta may be pretty hefty and only the consumer apps will be ready at first to work on Intel free of it. Hence the consumer line is the logical first to get the Intel chips, only then followed by the professional models later as more of the big actual pro apps (Macromedia, Adobe, etc.) get ported to Intel to work natively, by then Powerbooks would be in the pipeline, but not a moment sooner.

It doesn't matter how hefty Rosetta will be when your current processor has a 167Mhz bus and is 4 years old!

Seriously Rosetta or not a dual core 2Ghz Yonah is going to give even the PM G5 a run for its money, nevermind the current G4. Bring it on Apple!

On the other hand I bet it is gonna cost heaps.

[mactim]

Are you suggesting this as an option for 2006?

Another option as someone has suggested, is Jobs announcing the dual core ibook with powerbooks blowing even those out the water. One more thing just seems too far off. I can't wait.

[Val-kyrie]

Oh my lord. I have already retracted that statement if you RTFT. (read the ****** thread). I got confused with the developer kit requiring SSE3. I appoligize once again.

No offense intended. I only have a modem connection so I post as I read throught the posts in my tabbed windows. No need for the vulgarity, man.

[digitalbiker]

Is OS X not already both 32 and 64 bit? I was under the impression that starting with Tiger it would be 64 bit compatible, so that the G5s could take advantage.

Yes and No!

OS X provides only partial 64 bit support limited to non-GUI apps. It is a really lame claim to 64 bit support.

Full 64 bit support was anticipated for OS X 10.5 but Apple has not mentioned 64 bit at all since the Intel announcement. In fact, the Intel switch may have been set back OS X 64 bit support for some years to come, considering software developers would once again be forced to re-write applications for 64 bit.

I for one, am at a loss why Apple didn't have the foresite to make this a single step forward to full 64 bit x86 SSE3 OS X rather than baby steps demanding more work of the developers.

[Peace]

The DTK does not "require" SSE3..It just happens to be using an SSE3 CPU chipset.SSE3 isn't being used currently..
Almost all compiling is being done for SSE2..

The P4 in the DTK also has EM64T instructions..

[pgwalsh]

Sorry, just want to clarify something...What makes you think that Powerbooks are to first ones, and not Ibooks? Haven't the rumors been more incisive on Ibooks? Really, I'm just trying to figure out why are you still talking about PB's...Did I miss something...?

Why not release Intel based product across the entire line. What could be holding them back? They could offer a full line of x86 and PPC. They're keeping Tranmeta around until 2008 and obviously IBM will be manufacturing PPC chips through that period. So it makes sense that at some point they'll offer both lines in some form or another and neither one needs to be exclusive. Why not start 2006 with a bang and offer two full lines of computers.

Who knows, perhaps the whole concept of shipping both binaries is a hint that they'll support both platfroms well into the future. IBM has a new friend in the Xbox 360 which processor shares a close relation to the G5. I can see the need to keep producing G5's, at least in the scientific field.

[mactim]

Don't be too hard on the poor old G4!
Not everything is limited by the FSB (and DMA is at 333MHz).
Altivec is still better than SSE

It doesn't matter how hefty Rosetta will be when your current processor has a 167Mhz bus and is 4 years old!

Seriously Rosetta or not a dual core 2Ghz Yonah is going to give even the PM G5 a run for its money, nevermind the current G4. Bring it on Apple!

On the other hand I bet it is gonna cost heaps.

[Frobozz]

I want a Yonah or similar Intel PowerBook. The only problem is that the rumor mill suggests only the iBook will be moving to Intel. I find that hard to believe.

PowerBooks are in more need of a speed boost and pro level features. This is something Napa / Yonah will offer. The iBook could simple become a rewrapped PowerBook. I just don't understand how the iBook and lower end configurations would be first. Analysts claim this makes sense because the apps that people will use most often on a consumer laptop will already be Intel based (Apple produced.) Well, this is fine, but it doesn't add up.

If Intel is to be believed, the new Napa approach will yield 68% speed increase over existing Pentium M offerings. I think we can all agree that, when speaking strictly of raw CPU power, these Pentium M is *already* at least 25% faster. Arguments of that exact number aside, we're looking at somewhere around TWO TIMES as fast as the current PowerBooks. Even conservatively we could say 75%. So if we factor in a 20% speed decrease for Rosetta emulated apps, even emulation would be around 30% to 50% faster than a current PowerBook. The speed factor that Analysts claim is not a factor at all! Most speed bumps for Apple are in the range of 12 to 16%, aside from the recent quad update which was ~70%.

So my wish is that PowerBooks come out first as the flagship Intel transition laptop. Mac Mini / Home Media Mac as the flagship desktop.

[Val-kyrie]

The previous posts about the 25-30% decrease in the size of the laptops seems even more credible in light of this article:

"Napa . . . can help cut the size of a notebook by 30 percent versus today's machines, the Santa Clara, Calif., company said.

Thus . . . Napa will make for smaller, lighter notebooks with stronger performance, . . . ."

[Randall]

No offense intended. I only have a modem connection so I post as I read throught the posts in my tabbed windows. No need for the vulgarity, man.Sorry, it's just that I got 4 replies telling me how wrong I was all at once. Didn't mean to rip you apart. :cool:

[mactim]

This was reported for the DTK 10.4.1 because Rosetta required SSE3 (and Rosetta was required for some OS components).
I can see why some have got confused.

The DTK does not "require" SSE3..It just happens to be using an SSE3 CPU chipset.SSE3 isn't being used currently..
Almost all compiling is being done for SSE2..

The P4 in the DTK also has EM64T instructions..

[Randall]

I want a Yonah or similar Intel PowerBook. The only problem is that the rumor mill suggests only the iBook will be moving to Intel. I find that hard to believe.

PowerBooks are in more need of a speed boost and pro level features. This is something Napa / Yonah will offer. The iBook could simple become a rewrapped PowerBook. I just don't understand how the iBook and lower end configurations would be first. Analysts claim this makes sense because the apps that people will use most often on a consumer laptop will already be Intel based (Apple produced.) Well, this is fine, but it doesn't add up.

If Intel is to be believed, the new Napa approach will yield 68% speed increase over existing Pentium M offerings. I think we can all agree that, when speaking strictly of raw CPU power, these Pentium M is *already* at least 25% faster. Arguments of that exact number aside, we're looking at somewhere around TWO TIMES as fast as the current PowerBooks. Even conservatively we could say 75%. So if we factor in a 20% speed decrease for Rosetta emulated apps, even emulation would be around 30% to 50% faster than a current PowerBook. The speed factor that Analysts claim is not a factor at all! Most speed bumps for Apple are in the range of 12 to 16%, aside from the recent quad update which was ~70%.

So my wish is that PowerBooks come out first as the flagship Intel transition laptop. Mac Mini / Home Media Mac as the flagship desktop.
LMAO. Intel x86 with the help of Rosetta can emulate a PowerPC better then a G4 Powerbook can be a PowerPC. That is freaking awesome. Best post I've read today.

[Frobozz]

Apple should replace all G4 products with Intel and the iMac G5 should go Intel. Keep Xserve and the Powermac with G5s for now if they are faster.

The iMac G5 is already a performance leader in it's class. There is little reason, speaking strickly of speed, to move the iMac to Intel. I agree the PowerMac and xServe are also in this class.

Where Apple needs Intel, today, is in it's laptop and low end consumer lines due to power consumption and heat issues. PowerPC will continue to lead or match Intel on the high end well into 2007 if Apple needs it. Once IBM's desktop PowerPC production winds down (970 line) they will then need to move to Intel in the high end.

[digitalbiker]

Seriously Rosetta or not a dual core 2Ghz Yonah is going to give even the PM G5 a run for its money, nevermind the current G4. Bring it on Apple!

On the other hand I bet it is gonna cost heaps.

You're nuts! The PM G5 has a much faster FSB, faster processor speed, much faster floating point capability, multi-core processor, multi-processor capability. It out performs the Yonah in every way except power consumption.

Yonah is definitely a good processor but it is intended for portable use. Don't even think of comparing a portable proc to a workstation class proc.

[generik]

Upon revealing that SSE3 is not required by OS X x86, then I will predict:

January...
mini: Dothan
ibook: Dothan
Powerbook: dual core Yonah

June...
mini: Dothan
ibook: single core Yonah
Powerbook: dual core Yonah

When would you foresee a PM update?

[Peace]

This was reported for the DTK 10.4.1 because Rosetta required SSE3 (and Rosetta was required for some OS components).
I can see why some have got confused.

I see where you're coming from Tim but I guarantee you the DTK is WAY beyond 10.4.1..

I'd say more but I'd have to kill ya!
:p

[generik]

You're nuts! The PM G5 has a much faster FSB, faster processor speed, much faster floating point capability, multi-core processor, multi-processor capability. It out performs the Yonah in every way except power consumption.

Yonah is definitely a good processor but it is intended for portable use. Don't even think of comparing a portable proc to a workstation class proc.

If anything, FSB means nothing really. Look at the Netburst P4s, the latest of which has an FSB of 1066Mhz! 0MFG! W7F!! G0D1Y!

Is it fast? Hell no!

Anantech recently did a review which shows the dual core Yonah going neck with neck with the AMD X2 at the same clockspeed (2Ghz). It is going to be quite interesting a fight now.

[Randall]

So my wish is that PowerBooks come out first as the flagship Intel transition laptop. It's almost pre-ordained to happen that way, given the fact that the dual core Yonahs will come out first. Coincidence? Maybe...but I doubt it.

[maya]

So I can finally invest again in a decent spec'd Apple notebook. :D

[Randall]

If anything, FSB means nothing really. Look at the Netburst P4s, the latest of which has an FSB of 1066Mhz! 0MFG! W7F!! G0D1Y!

Is it fast? Hell no!

Anantech recently did a review which shows the dual core Yonah going neck with neck with the AMD X2 at the same clockspeed (2Ghz). It is going to be quite interesting a fight now.Are you serious? FSB is everything!! Netburst's problem is it's design, not it's FSB.

[maya]

It's almost pre-ordained to happen that way, given the fact that the dual core Yonahs will come out first. Coincidence? Maybe...but I doubt it.

PowerBooks will be updated, if you look at 2005 you will see that the PowerBook like is always updated at MWSF. It happen with the PBG4 Ti in 2001 and now it will be the PB Intel at 2006.

That is sad the G4 resided in the PowerBook line for 4 years. :eek:

Apple will update the iBook in due time for school buying season, around April-Sept 2006. ;) :)

[Peace]

Are you serious? FSB is everything!!

Amen to that! My old G5 1.6 with a 800Mhz bus runs faster than the single G5 2.0

[Randall]

That is sad the G4 resided in the PowerBook line for 4 years. :eek:

Talk about a dramatic upgrade. This is gonna be amazing. Finally the Powerbook will get a much needed breath of life.

[mactim]

This is not true! You are setting yourself up for a disappointment!
Rosetta relies upon the fact that, for a typical GUI app, the vast majority of CPU time is spent inside library calls to the OS (which will be native).

LMAO. Intel x86 with the help of Rosetta can emulate a PowerPC better then a G4 Powerbook can be a PowerPC. That is freaking awesome. Best post I've read today.

[digitalbiker]

It happen with the PBG4 Ti in 2001 and now it will be the PB Intel at 2006.

That is sad the G4 resided in the PowerBook line for 4 years. :eek:


Your math is off. It has been 5 years of the PB with a G4.

[Randall]

This is not true! You are setting yourself up for a disappointment!
Rosetta relies upon the fact that, for a typical GUI app, the vast majority of CPU time is spent inside library calls to the OS (which will be native).
So the second core can putz around with the library calls while the first core runs the application then. How come we have been hearing reports that Rosetta is fast (enough) to be comparable?

[Stella]

Anantech recently did a review which shows the dual core Yonah going neck with neck with the AMD X2 at the same clockspeed (2Ghz). It is going to be quite interesting a fight now.

That was a good article, but Yonah is a mobile processor whilst it was being compared against desktop processors?

Still, Yonah put up an OK show... it'll be fast enough for PowerBooks and iBooks... considering what Apple have now ( G4s ).

[maya]

Your math is off. It has been 5 years of the PB with a G4.

Actually no...

PBG4 Ti released Jan 2001 so lets take that:

2001-2002 = 1 year

2002-2003 = 2 years

2003 - 2004 = 3 years

2004 - 2005 = 4 years

If the PB hold the G4 chip till the end of 2006 then we can say its been 5 years. ;) :)

[mactim]

Applications will have to be multi-threaded to take advantage of two cores.
If you have been hearing reports that Rosetta is 'comparable' then they are likely to be talking about GUI apps. Apple have said that Rosetta is not suitable for 'performance intensive' applications. Read that to mean an app that doesn't spend all its time waiting for event messages.

So the second core can putz around with the library calls while the first core runs the application then. How come we have been hearing reports that Rosetta is fast (enough) to be comparable?

[maya]

Talk about a dramatic upgrade. This is gonna be amazing. Finally the Powerbook will get a much needed breath of life.

Yep, Apple milked the G4 in the mobile line for far too long. And they have made a profit on it. So with mobile sales sloping I do not have any pity on Apple. They deserve it. :)

[Randall]

Applications will have to be multi-threaded to take advantage of two cores.
If you have been hearing reports that Rosetta is 'comparable' then they are likely to be talking about GUI apps. Apple have said that Rosetta is not suitable for 'performance intensive' applications. Read that too mean an app that doesn't spend all its time waiting for event messages.I see. So running something like Mathematica or something that requires a lot of processing will suffer greatly, while a simple GUI app that is not CPU intensive would be good to go on Rosetta. So it looks like we might not have such a smooth transition after all. Developers need to get their code compiled for x86 ASAP. That is much easier said then done, esp. for apps that utilize low level CPU instructions.

[otter-boy]

If the PB hold the G4 chip till the end of 2006 then we can say its been 5 years. ;) :)

Okay, okay, it's been 4.94326791... years with the G4 or is it 4.929457683... or maybe 4.958372645... (maybe I should just use seconds from release for the most accurate numbers?) :o

[digitalbiker]

So the second core can putz around with the library calls while the first core runs the application then. How come we have been hearing reports that Rosetta is fast (enough) to be comparable?

Trust Mactim.

He knows what he is talking about. Most of the reliable reports put Rosetta as ACCEPTABLE performance for non-altivec heavy apps and sub-par to incompatible with altivec heavy apps. This is on the developer machine.

Rosetta won't benefit much from dual procs. I certainly wouldn't expect Pro-Apps to run faster on the x86 OS X until they go native.

[Randall]

Yep, Apple milked the G4 in the mobile line for far too long. And they have made a profit on it. So with mobile sales sloping I do not have any pity on Apple. They deserve it. :) I used this exact way to describe the G4's longevity the other day. That is funny! Apple has definately "milked" the G4 to death. The switch to Intel will make them look like geniuses too, because they'll be getting close to 100% increase in processing speed compaired to the dusty old G4s... assuming of course that their applications are ported to x86 architecture.

[Randall]

Okay, okay, it's been 4.94326791... years with the G4 or is it 4.929457683... or maybe 4.958372645... (maybe I should just use seconds from release for the most accurate numbers?) :oMaybe you could use the PPC G4 to calcualte it out, but we could be here a while waiting for results. ;)

[viggen9]

To all those that are saying Apple will introduce Intel iBooks first, well that will mean the ibooks will be faster than the G4 PowerBooks (when using native Intel apps vs native PPC in the PowerBook). So I think the PowerBooks are going to have to be first.

Also we are not going to see dual-core cpus in the iBooks, it will be single core only. Apple needs something to differentiate between them.

Lastly, when Apple said they would switch the professional line last, they were talking about the PowerMac G5, which is plenty of power at the moment.

I think that to get around this problem, Apple will Announce both the PowerBook and iBook lines. The iBooks may start shipping right away, while the PowerBooks could start shipping in time for WWDC. Jobs can challenge the pro app developers to have their apps ready for the pro release in June. This way the PowerBooks will still be faster (on paper) without impacting notebook sales for those customers waiting for the intel processors.

[maya]

Maybe you could use the PPC G4 to calcualte it out, but we could be here a while waiting for results. ;)

And in the end it will result in an "error -65" message. ;) :D
or
The OS will have a kernel panic. :D

[digitalbiker]

Actually no...

PBG4 Ti released Jan 2001 so lets take that:

2001-2002 = 1 year

2002-2003 = 2 years

2003 - 2004 = 3 years

2004 - 2005 = 4 years

If the PB hold the G4 chip till the end of 2006 then we can say its been 5 years. ;) :)

Wrong Again.
If they hold the PB with a G4 chip in it for the next six weeks it will be 5 years.

Jan 2001 to Jan 2006 equals 5 years. The end of 2006 would be almost 6 years.

[boombashi]

I used this exact way to describe the G4's longevity the other day. That is funny! Apple has definately "milked" the G4 to death. The switch to Intel will make them look like geniuses too, because they'll be getting close to 100% increase in processing speed compaired to the dusty old G4s... assuming of course that their applications are ported to x86 architecture.

I actually Need a PowerBook 6 months ago, but obviously I'm not buying now, and obviously I'm not buying until the restructure the line with a significant speed upgrade. that G4 is so old, you would have to be brain dead to buy one now...unless you are a Hippie and productivity is no concern to you. I just hope we don't have to wait 6 months to get what we want. Remain positive Dual-Core PBs ship in late January :) I will probably punch a whole in my computer if I don't hear good news on Jan 10th. I will then proceed to become a Farmer or a Hippie.

[maya]

I think that to get around this problem, Apple will Announce both the PowerBook and iBook lines. The iBooks may start shipping right away, while the PowerBooks could start shipping in time for WWDC. Jobs can challenge the pro app developers to have their apps ready for the pro release in June. This way the PowerBooks will still be faster (on paper) without impacting notebook sales for those customers waiting for the intel processors.

No that will not happen, as the Pro line almost always gets the new processors. The only reason why the iMac got the G5 and not the PowerBook was due to mobility issues, etc...

There is no reason why Apple cannot introduce a PowerBook Intel and at WWDC an iBook Intel for the school year. If the software is ready or not, we cannot say for certain. However this will give some companies the resources to port they "in-house" software over to the new hardware.

And we do not know if all the big companies have they OS X86 apps ready and choose to keep it under wraps till MWSF 2006. ;) :)

[Peace]

I actually Need a PowerBook 6 months ago, but obviously I'm not buying now, and obviously I'm not buying until the restructure the line with a significant speed upgrade. that G4 is so old, you would have to be brain dead to buy one now...unless you are a Hippie and productivity is no concern to you. I just hope we don't have to wait 6 months to get what we want. Remain positive Dual-Core PBs ship in late January :) I will probably punch a whole in my computer if I don't hear good news on Jan 10th. I will then proceed to become a Farmer or a Hippie.

I'm a hippie and productivity means a lot to me..
:)

I DO have a rev.a powerbook for sale tho..Only problem is I stepped on the lid last week..Ugly,ugly black stripe down the middle now..*cough* *cough*

[boombashi]

Wrong Again.
If they hold the PB with a G4 chip in it for the next six weeks it will be 5 years.

Jan 2001 to Jan 2006 equals 5 years. The end of 2006 would be almost 6 years.

I concur, Maya forgot 2005-2006 in the math.

[Randall]

And in the end it will result in an "error -65" message. ;) :D
or
The OS will have a kernel panic. :D

LMAO Kernel Panic!!! A classic.http://forums.nyyfans.com/images/smilies/new/roflmao.gifhttp://forums.nyyfans.com/images/smilies/new/roflmao.gif

[maya]

Wrong Again.
If they hold the PB with a G4 chip in it for the next six weeks it will be 5 years.

LOL, I did forget 2005-2006. My mistake. :)

[Seasought]

I just bought one of the current Powerbooks but I'm psyched to see what's up next.

Never thought I'd say that again about computers...it's good to be switched.

[maya]

I concur, Maya forgot 2005-2006 in the math.

Hehe, you and the other member are indeed correct, I forgot to add Jan 2005-2006 Dec. It must be a long day at work. :o

[Randall]

I just bought one of the current Powerbooks but I'm psyched to see what's up next.

Never thought I'd say that again about computers...it's good to be switched.
Yup Apple got you to switch, then they switched the hardware. Switcherooo!

[digitalbiker]

How the heck is that wrong, you are counting 365 days, 12 months in one year. You might want to redo your math as you are actually counting 2006 as the 5th year.

Its a common mistake that also happen when calculating time. ;) :)

Want to explain your calculations? :)

OK let me show you.
Jan 1, 2001 to Jan. 1 2002, 1 year
Jan. 1 2002 to Jan. 1 2003, 2 years
Jan 1, 2003 to Jan. 1 2004, 3 years
Jan. 1 2004, to Jan. 1 2005, 4 years
Jan. 1 2005 to Jan. 1 2006, 5 years
Jan. 1 2006 to Dec. 31 2006 almost exactly 6 years

Oops! Sorry I see that you already detected your error while I was typing.

[Randall]

OK let me show you.
Jan 1, 2001 to Jan. 1 2002, 1 year
Jan. 1 2002 to Jan. 1 2003, 2 years
Jan 1, 2003 to Jan. 1 2004, 3 years
Jan. 1 2004, to Jan. 1 2005, 4 years
Jan. 1 2005 to Jan. 1 2006, 5 years
Jan. 1 2006 to Dec. 31 2006 almost exactly 6 years.It won't be 6 years... The G4 is in the garbage can come Jan 10th 2006. Finally. Finally!! I hope that Apple plans on upgrading as quickly as Intel can crank them out. Exponentially faster then IBM/Moto ever could.

[Seasought]

Yup Apple got you to switch, then they switched the hardware. Switcherooo!

Oh the irony of it all! :D

[boombashi]

I'm a hippie and productivity means a lot to me..
:)

I DO have a rev.a powerbook for sale tho..Only problem is I stepped on the lid last week..Ugly,ugly black stripe down the middle now..*cough* *cough*

There is a difference in being a Hippie at heart and a Hippie that smokes a pound of grass everyday and tours with Phish - "Time is irrevelvent in the infinite cosmos, man....puff puff" - Nothing wrong with that, I just make more money and have more time off when I get work done quicker ;)

[Peace]

There is a difference in being a Hippie at heart and a Hippie that smokes a pound of grass everyday and tours with Phish - "Time is irrevelvent in the infinite cosmos, man....puff puff" - Nothing wrong with that, I just make more money and have more time off when I get work done quicker ;)

I toured with Grateful Dead for quit some time as a photographer.Not all "hippies" are useless people..I have found a lot are more in tune to reality than the corporate world is..

There's more to life than Money..

[boombashi]

I toured with Grateful Dead for quit some time as a photographer.Not all "hippies" are useless people..I have found a lot are more in tune to reality than the corporate world is..

There's more to life than Money..

I didn't mean to offend you. To be honest, I love the Greatful Dead and Phish and Hippies ;) I was just kidding, I'm pretty much one myself in many ways...I went to a couple of Dead shows back in the day...I was just saying that there are some people that don't require as much power out of their machines than others...and I don't know about you but the majority of people I met at dead shows weren't getting much "work" done ;)

I don't live to work, I work to live my man...peace

[Edit] Oh yeah, Steve Jobs was a Hippie and look what happened to him. ;)

[Apple Freeeak]

Mac Mini.

They are starting from the bottom and working their way up.
Powerbooks and PowerMacs will be the absolute last machines to get Intel

[nph]

Considering that the current Powerbook has not been updated speedwise in a year, I cant see Apple just letting it sit there with the same speed for another 6 months. I think it wil be PB first and then iBook.
Alternatively maybe we will see the 7448 in the Powerbook first...

[boombashi]

Considering that the current Powerbook has not been updated speedwise in a year, I cant see Apple just letting it sit there with the same speed for another 6 months. I think it wil be PB first and then iBook.
Alternatively maybe we will see the 7448 in the Powerbook first...

Yeah, I doubt they would be so hard cut and start from the bottom up. I could see a mac mini upgrade and not a laptop upgrade, but I think they will do PBs first or both at the same time, or a new line all together (very possible).

Actually my real prediction is nobody knows what they are talking about except Apple who will be suprising the crap out of everyone in a few weeks - can't wait.

[pgwalsh]

Considering that the current Powerbook has not been updated speedwise in a year, I cant see Apple just letting it sit there with the same speed for another 6 months. I think it wil be PB first and then iBook.
Alternatively maybe we will see the 7448 in the Powerbook first...
No sure why so many people are convinced it'll be one or the other. I don't think it's that difficult to imagine Apple releasing a new iBook and PowerBook. Both are in need of an update.

[Maxiseller]

No sure why so many people are convinced it'll be one or the other. I don't think it's that difficult to imagine Apple releasing a new iBook and PowerBook. Both are in need of an update.

Agree wholly.

As it's been said, they can't update the iBook without it entirely taking over the powerbook; and obviously that isn't going to happen. Having said that, even if the iMac dwarfs the POWERbook anymore the situation will become laughable.

How long has everybody waited and prayed for a G5 powerbook "next tuesday"...I tell you, ill be pissed if January is all about the iPod again..."and one more thing is an iPod the size of a match - sure it holds only the one song, but it's thinner than my hair"

[GregA]

OS X x86 requires SSE3... hence there will be no old Dothan pentium M's. These will all be Yonah based pentium M's.Yonah handles SSE2 much better than Dothan did, and it supports SOME (not all) of the SSE3 functions. Which explains why Apple asked developers not to port to Intel assuming the chip would have SSE3 (though I figured they also did that just incase Yonah didn't materialise as expected!)

[supersalzme]

All rumors aside, there is no way apple can just sit on the powerbook for much longer. People (even the average consumer) are starting to notice there are slim differences in performance from the ibook and PB. Yes, there are a few things, but not enough for someone like me to drop 2000 bucks on a 15" PB with a line infested screen. To be honest, if they DON'T come out with a PB in the next few months...I probably will just have to get a PC notebook...and that...sucks.

[pgwalsh]

Agree wholly.

As it's been said, they can't update the iBook without it entirely taking over the powerbook; and obviously that isn't going to happen. Having said that, even if the iMac dwarfs the POWERbook anymore the situation will become laughable.

How long has everybody waited and prayed for a G5 powerbook "next tuesday"...I tell you, ill be pissed if January is all about the iPod again..."and one more thing is an iPod the size of a match - sure it holds only the one song, but it's thinner than my hair"You haven't heard!!! Rumor has it that Apple "will" release a new iPod. It's called the iPod Nero, which is surgically implanted in your brain and uses the 90% of the brain you don't use to store music. It uses your body as a battery and teaches you how to dance properly. It also has a built in wireless connection and when you think of music you like, it automatically purchases it, but there's some DRM issue with that. It's the future.

[Randall]

Agree wholly.

As it's been said, they can't update the iBook without it entirely taking over the powerbook; and obviously that isn't going to happen. Having said that, even if the iMac dwarfs the POWERbook anymore the situation will become laughable.

How long has everybody waited and prayed for a G5 powerbook "next tuesday"...I tell you, ill be pissed if January is all about the iPod again..."and one more thing is an iPod the size of a match - sure it holds only the one song, but it's thinner than my hair"Ahhh the iPod pico! Steve is that you? Seriously, Apple will be updating the Powerbook to a dual core 2 GHz Intel Pentium M "Yonah". Anything less will be unacceptable.

[GregA]

Well it is a given that there will be compatibility problems considering that this is x86 vs PPC. Also the processor will definitely cost much, much more. The G4 PPC is a very inexpensive processor, the new Yonah will initially be Intels flagship processor and cost a pretty penny.The cost is an important factor. The cost and apparent speed is what makes me guess Powerbooks are more likely than iBooks.

If Apple releases Intel iBooks first, they'll outperform the Powerbooks. Assuming that the Powerbooks don't get a dual-core G4 or similar.
I hope that they keep the outside relatively the same. Why mess with perfection? It has got to be the most solid and well built laptop I have ever seen. Apple please don't change the outside. :o

Perfection!? :) Well, while I wouldn't say perfection, I do think the Powerbook 15" and iBook 12" look particularly good.

Personally, I hope that for the first Intel machines Apple makes them look identical to the old PPC machines. If normal users can't tell the difference, this would be very good for Apple. It makes people more comfortable with the switch and happy to buy the Intel machines - AND the seamless transition keeps confidence in PowerMac G5s.

[qtip919]

All rumors aside, there is no way apple can just sit on the powerbook for much longer. People (even the average consumer) are starting to notice there are slim differences in performance from the ibook and PB. Yes, there are a few things, but not enough for someone like me to drop 2000 bucks on a 15" PB with a line infested screen. To be honest, if they DON'T come out with a PB in the next few months...I probably will just have to get a PC notebook...and that...sucks.


ew...

why not just get a "last version" powerbook (v.before the upgraded screens)

I have been soooo happy with my current 1.5ghz powerbook...wouldnt trade it for the world. Ive noticed these going for around 1100 on ebay (which is a flat out steal)

the only thing you need to do is make sure there is applecare on it, or have the receipt so you can purchase applecare at the end of the 1yr warranty period.

[Randall]

Yonah handles SSE2 much better than Dothan did, and it supports SOME (not all) of the SSE3 functions. Which explains why Apple asked developers not to port to Intel assuming the chip would have SSE3 (though I figured they also did that just incase Yonah didn't materialise as expected!)hehe, I guess Apple was used to getting burned by IBM. Intel will not dissapoint. Their sole purpose in life is to churn out useable CPUs in a reasonable time frame. Take a lesson IBM... Moore's law will stay intact... no thanks to you!

[plastique45]

Finally, some REAL processors in an Apple box.

[pgwalsh]

ew...

why not just get a "last version" powerbook (v.before the upgraded screens)

I have been soooo happy with my current 1.5ghz powerbook...wouldnt trade it for the world. Ive noticed these going for around 1100 on ebay (which is a flat out steal)

the only thing you need to do is make sure there is applecare on it, or have the receipt so you can purchase applecare at the end of the 1yr warranty period.My 1.5 Ghz 15" PowerBook is two years old and it feels older. I'm ready for something with more power. I started looking at desktops, but with the transition, I'm not sure. It'll be very intersting to see how the new machines pace and which software developers port their apps quickly. That'll make all the difference, IMO.

[Norse Son]

Sorry, just want to clarify something...What makes you think that Powerbooks are to first ones, and not Ibooks? Haven't the rumors been more incisive on Ibooks? Really, I'm just trying to figure out why are you still talking about PB's...Did I miss something...?

• Are we talking about Think Secret? How many times have their sources dusted off the old tablet Mac rumors, or the mysterious "Asteroid" project that was due... hmmm... When was the last time it was due? Or the, what was it... the XStation "superduperslooper" workstation... Please, if you take them as gospel, Orson Wells has a radio broadcast you just gotta tune in.

• The point is, I don't trust rumors until I hear Steve say, "Oh, and one more thing..." Sometimes I think Steve gets bored up in his office, so he walks by the dumpster when noone's looking and writes some "hearsay", just to see how quick the rumor sites will jump on it - he's gotta be rollin' on the floor this month.http://forums.macrumors.com/images/smilies/cool.gif

• I quoted Polinho, who was responding to Lacero, who seems to have a clearer understanding of the big picture.

• Right now there is negligible difference between the PowerBook and iBook. The latter could not advance further with the G4, because the former had no where to climb. If you moved the iBook to Intel (Yonah/Napa) it would leap to a minimum 1.8GHz on a 600MHz bus (I think #s are correct). And that would blow away the G4, stuck at 1.67GHz on a 66MHz(still?!?) bus...http://forums.macrumors.com/images/smilies/mad.gif

• The iBook cannot... CANNOT... get the Yonah before/until the PowerBook. I've surfed enough stories/rumors the past 6 months to see the logic of the anemic Powerbook getting the dual-core, 32bit Yonah in January. The iBook will await the single-core, 32bit Yonah, which should debut around May/June. Then, around September, Intel will release the dual-core, 64bit Merom, at which point I believe the iBook and PowerBook lines will split/broaden into 4 distinct lines.
•• iBook "Jr.": Yonah 32bit/single-core, Intel integrated graphics (32-64MB shared memory), 13" WS, combo drive, ATA-100 hard drive, Centrino (802.11g)...
•• iBook: Yonah 32bit/dual-core (1.8-2GHz), Intel graphics (64-128MB shared memory), 13-15" WS, Superdrive, ATA-100 hard drive, Centrino (802.11g)...
•• PowerBook: Yonah 32bit/dual-core (2GHz +), PCI-E x16 GPU (128MB VRAM), 13" & 15" WS, Superdrive, S-ATA hard drive, Centrino (802.11g)...
•• PowerBook "PRO": Merom 64bit/dual-core (2.4GHz +), PCI-E x16 GPU (256MB VRAM), 15" & 17" WS HD + DVR, Superdrive, S-ATA hard drive, Centrino (802.11n), FrWr 800, USB 2, digital audio i/o...

[youngestchild]

ah! I want to sell my ibook to help pay for a new (current model) imac. i was banking on the new intel imac to come out at mwsf thus dropping the price of the pp imac but i need to get maximum $$$ for my ibook, it'll be a 13 months old by the time i want to sell.... but if the intel ibooks come out i'll have no choice but to drop it down to $$ :(

[DrEasy]

Aren't the current iBooks held back in order not to compete with the PowerBooks? Also, wouldn't this Napa platform be too expensive to put in an iBook?

One possiblity would therefore be to release a Napa-based PowerBook, while the iBook is upgraded to the best G4 there is (i.e. whatever is in the current PowerBooks), along with a price drop.

Then in April the iBook would migrate to a single-core Yonah.

Or maybe a new laptop with a completely different name and design (black!) will be released, the rumored 13'' with the 16/9 ratio using Napa. The 12'' PowerBook and the 14'' iBook are EOL'd and the 12'' iBook is upgraded to the best G4 there is. But that seems too confusing.

[strange days]

The previous posts about the 25-30% decrease in the size of the laptops seems even more credible in light of this article:

"Napa . . . can help cut the size of a notebook by 30 percent versus today's machines, the Santa Clara, Calif., company said.

Thus . . . Napa will make for smaller, lighter notebooks with stronger performance, . . . ."

woohoo, anybody looking for a 9 incher yonah laptop ? :D

[Sogo]

Umm...Has everyone forgotten that intel will come out with Mermon mid year'ish of 2006? I just mention this since it hasnt really been seen as a possibility.

[Norse Son]

"Unless running PowerPC code on these things (Rosetta) has been vastly improved, it will be iBooks first."

" Steve said consumers first then professionals in that Intel keynote didn't he? I'm 80% sure he did."

"Remember, it's going to take some time to get the big professional apps transitioned over to Universal binary so they can run at better than snail speeds on an mactel machine. Apple jumping the gun on the Intel transition makes it even more likely that most professional apps will still be stuck with PowerPC only code."

"I'd say the tiny iBook reaching into broader market territory with a good price and lower speed is the most likely announcement along with a redesigned mac mini/media device and a big focus on Leopard because Vista is now set to mid 2006 and Steve said they'd meet the release date.

• Going from a 1.67GHz G4 on a 66MHz(?) bus, to a dual-core 1.8-2.1GHz Yonah on a 600MHz bus will ease a lot of Rosetta's lag.

• At no place in the keynote does Steve say "consumer first". I believe it was the WSJ (and/or C|Net)"leaked" stories prior to WWDC that said consumer.

• The apps that will struggle to "cross over" will be those compiled in Code Warrior. Apps originally written/compiled using XCode, or those converted over prior to the x86 announcement, will have the least trouble. Didn't Steve call Wolfram on stage at WWDC to show how it took 2 hours and 20 lines of code-change to recompile Mathematica?
It's "similar" to the whole Classic/Carbon/Cocoa transition from MacOS 9 to MacOS X.

• Longsnore-z-z-z was originally expected to hit beta back in, what, 2003? With a release in 2004, no, 2005, no...ARGHHHSGWT!...
Last week I read that the second developer beta, wasn't "on its way" from MS, for early December - ZOIKs! My calender says it's already the 14th.
And it sounds like they may skip a few previously (I won't say "original", as MS promised that back in the Jurrasic period) announced developer releases over the next couple months... And that kind of a timetable suggests the first public beta won't come before next September...
So, given MS's track record to date, and the features that continue to drop by the side of the meandering path... I think that Steve will be announcing "Alley" for release at the same time as Vista, because Alley Cat will be the only cat codename left by that distant date.

[SiliconAddict]

Seriously Rosetta or not a dual core 2Ghz Yonah is going to give even the PM G5 a run for its money, nevermind the current G4. Bring it on Apple!



OK I think I can claim to be one of the biggest Pentium M proponents on MR but claiming that it will take on a G5? Umm no. The one area the M gets trounced is FP calculations. The Yonah is supposedly improving on its performance but its still FAR behind even P4’s let alone G5’s.

[SiliconAddict]

Umm...Has everyone forgotten that intel will come out with Mermon mid year'ish of 2006? I just mention this since it hasnt really been seen as a possibility.


I still think Mermon won't be out til end of 3rd quarter. IMHO September-ish.

[Randall]

Yonah handles SSE2 much better than Dothan did, and it supports SOME (not all) of the SSE3 functions. Which explains why Apple asked developers not to port to Intel assuming the chip would have SSE3 (though I figured they also did that just incase Yonah didn't materialise as expected!)Yonah does support ALL of the SSE3 instrcution set. I don't know where you got your information, but I think you are mis-informed in this respect. :rolleyes:

Right now there is negligible difference between the PowerBook and iBook. The latter could not advance further with the G4, because the former had no where to climb. If you moved the iBook to Intel (Yonah/Napa) it would leap to a minimum 1.8GHz on a 600MHz bus (I think #s are correct). And that would blow away the G4, stuck at 1.67GHz on a 66MHz(still?!?) :mad: To set the record strait... The PPC G4 is at a 1.67GHz clock with a 167MHz FSB. As for Yonah, it will launch with clock speeds up to 2.16 GHz with a 667 MHz FSB (166 MHz quad-pumped). A single core version will also be available, and a cut-down version of that will be marketed under the Celeron M brand. I think we can all guess as to which formats will be going where. :p

[Multimedia]

Sorry, just want to clarify something...What makes you think that Powerbooks are to first ones, and not Ibooks? Haven't the rumors been more incisive on Ibooks? Really, I'm just trying to figure out why are you still talking about PB's...Did I miss something...?Because Dual Core Yonahs Come First. Single core Yonahs won't come out until later in 2006.

[Randall]

Because Dual Core Yonahs Come First. Single core Yonahs won't come out until later in 2006.We all know that the Powerbooks will be the first to receive the x86 goodness, if only because of the dual core processor. Apple will take this opportunity to unvail the FIRST EVER DUAL CORE LAPTOP COMPUTER, and thus, Powerbook regains it's rightful place as king of all portables. This is not a rumor, it doesn't take a genius to realize that not even Apple can resist this opportunity to re-claim the mobile throne.

[Randall]

OK I think I can claim to be one of the biggest Pentium M proponents on MR but claiming that it will take on a G5? Umm no. The one area the M gets trounced is FP calculations. The Yonah is supposedly improving on its performance but its still FAR behind even P4’s let alone G5’s. That is correct. Integer performance in Yonah even decreased slightly due to higher latency cache. (This is comparing Yonah to the current line of Pentium M processors "Dothan" based)

[AidenShaw]

So the second core can putz around with the library calls while the first core runs the application then. How come we have been hearing reports that Rosetta is fast (enough) to be comparable?
It doesn't work that way, except in rare circumstances.

The code has to be written to run in multiple threads, and the multiple threads can be run in parallel on both cores. You can't make arbitrary core assignments based on program topology.

Having said that, there of course are some library calls that are implemented as threads. These can run in parallel, but usually the program has to be aware that they're running asynchronously in order to get full advantage.

[WillMak]

sigh...it makes me sad to know my ibook's 5 hour battery life will soon be considered trash :(

[SiliconAddict]

That is correct. Integer performance in Yonah even decreased slightly due to higher latency cache. (This is comparing Yonah to the current line of Pentium M processors "Dothan" based)


That's not what Anandtech's Yonah preview (http://anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2627) says. They suggest that changes from Dothan to Yonah do pick up performance when it comes to FP calculations. Its just not on par with desktop CPU's.

[Randall]

sigh...it makes me sad to know my ibook's 5 hour battery life will soon be considered trash :(
thank the battery industry for not improving Lithium Ion batteries, or at least come up with longer lasting batteries. Is is just me, or does anybody else feel that while electronics technology has always improved steadily, the power sources seem to stay idle for years at a time? Batteries need to find a way to improve to meet the demands of new technology.

[iTron5]

We all know that the Powerbooks will be the first to receive the x86 goodness, if only because of the dual core processor. Apple will take this opportunity to unvail the FIRST EVER DUAL CORE LAPTOP COMPUTER, and thus, Powerbook regains it's rightful place as king of all portables. This is not a rumor, it doesn't take a genius to realize that not even Apple can resist this opportunity to re-claim the mobile throne.


You can already buy dual core laptops, alienware sells them. Granted these are desktop chips in a desktop replacement type laptop for gaming.

[Randall]

That's not what Anandtech's Yonah preview (http://anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2627) says. They suggest that changes from Dothan to Yonah do pick up performance when it comes to FP calculations. Its just not on par with desktop CPU's.I read the article and I don't see the part were it says that Yonahs FP calculations are better then Dothans. Could you please post a small section of that paragraph for me?

[Randall]

You can already buy dual core laptops, alienware sells them. Granted these are desktop chips in a desktop replacement type laptop for gaming.Well then I'm not officially counting them. :p

[iTron5]

Well then I'm not officially counting them. :p


And i'm sure apple will appreciate that :-) I tried a smily face but for some reason i only get the link, what's up with that?

[Randall]

And i'm sure apple will appreciate that :p haha I'm sure they will too. I have seen those ALienware laptops, a.k.a. desktop on a hinge. While extremely impressive, you can't reliably use them on your lap without a trip to the hospital for severe third degree burns. ;)

[Randall]

And i'm sure apple will appreciate that :-) I tried a smily face but for some reason i only get the link, what's up with that? dunno, that's weird. :p try a colon together with a lowercase p.

[iTron5]

haha I'm sure they will too. I have seen those ALienware laptops, a.k.a. desktop on a hinge. While extremely impressive, you can't reliably use them on your lap without a trip to the hospital for severe third degree burns. ;)

yeah i had a sager, the same chasis that alienware uses, while it was AWESOME for pure power and gaming, it is not a 'portable' by any means, and your right, don't put it on your lap. It was perfect for what i bought it for however. I am greatly looking forward to new apple laptops though, i know this will be seen as against all laws of man and nature by some on here, but i want to set this up as triple boot if possible, os/x, windows xp, and linux. I'm a developer and this would make the absolute dream setup for me.

[Randall]

yeah i had a sager, the same chasis that alienware uses, while it was AWESOME for pure power and gaming, it is not a 'portable' by any means, and your right, don't put it on your lap. It was perfect for what i bought it for however. I am greatly looking forward to new apple laptops though, i know this will be seen as against all laws of man and nature by some on here, but i want to set this up as triple boot if possible, os/x, windows xp, and linux. I'm a developer and this would make the absolute dream setup for me. I hear you. Apple switching to x86 is a dream come true for the triple-boot scenerio :p Just image having one machine that runs 99% of all the software known to man. sweeet.

[iTron5]

I hear you. Apple switching to x86 is a dream come true for the triple-boot scenerio :p Just image having one machine that runs 99% of all the software known to man. sweeet.


yeah now if they could just cram a 500gb drive in there all is good :p

[ASP272]

So in January we should see the intelBook and the Macintel Mini, eh? he he

[Randall]

yeah now if they could just cram a 500gb drive in there all is good :pYup. SATA 3Gb/sec of course. :cool:

[shigzeo]

You can already buy dual core laptops, alienware sells them. Granted these are desktop chips in a desktop replacement type laptop for gaming.

Though I am very fond of the idea of incorporating power-saving chips with huge performance potentials, I see only one problem, that is that where as Alien Ware supplies 64bit chips, Yonah is still 32bit, dual, but merely 32 bit. For windows or linux users, this is not a problem as there are separate versions for native and pure 32 or 64 bit hardwares, but osx is a blanket os, having to spread over all hardware configs. If Yonah takes reigns into the portable field, though needed as a speedy replacement to the g4, we will be stuck with 32bit os which will not benefit 64bit high-end users. I for one am not in for mac users to be relegated to yesterday. Yonah is great, but not if my next Leapard must share its kernel koding between the two different bus widths.

[SiliconAddict]

I read the article and I don't see the part were it says that Yonahs FP calculations are better then Dothans. Could you please post a small section of that paragraph for me?

The problem with the Pentium M architecture has been that although it’s traditionally done well at office tasks and obviously in the power consumption department, it has lagged behind the Pentium 4 and Athlon 64 when it comes to FP intensive applications such as video encoding, and to a lesser degree, 3D gaming. With Yonah, Intel has promised to address those performance issues, and even more so with their next-generation micro-architecture later next year.

http://anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2627&p=6

Much like the DivX test, we see that although Yonah has come a long way from Dothan, it is still not competitive with the likes of the Athlon 64 X2. It is a shame, as we were hoping for more out of Intel's FP/SSE enhancements.

[Some_Big_Spoon]

No matter what they choose, it can't come too soon. You just can't get enough RAM or tweak these lame duck G4's anymore. Forgive it all you want, but it's a dead, dead dog. My linux laptop flies compared to my maxed out PB, and though it's usability is atrocious, it still gets projects done faster, so I'm pretty excited to not see the spinning beachball as much come next year.

[Randall]

http://anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2627&p=6
Thanks for the link, but all this does is compare Yonah to desktop architectures. it doesn't really say anything about FP calculations versus current Pentium Ms, which as far as I know, are slightly better.

[AidenShaw]

Well then I'm not officially counting them. :p
And I suppose that you believed Apple's claim that the Powermac G5 was the first desktop 64-bit computer, and their claim that the PMG4 was a supercomputer, and those ridiculous GFLOPS claims for every PM ???

:eek:

[Randall]

No matter what they choose, it can't come too soon. You just can't get enough RAM or tweak these lame duck G4's anymore. Forgive it all you want, but it's a dead, dead dog. My linux laptop flies compared to my maxed out PB, and though it's usability is atrocious, it still gets projects done faster, so I'm pretty excited to not see the spinning beachball as much come next year.Is that what that thing is supposed to be? heh :D It was an interresting choice over the generic hour glass I must admit.

[Randall]

And I suppose that you believed Apple's claim that the Powermac G5 was the first desktop 64-bit computer, and their claim that the PMG4 was a supercomputer, and those ridiculous GFLOPS claims for every PM ???

:eek: now now let's not get crazy. The fact is that a desktop architecture stuffed up the ass of a laptop is not truely portable in the traditional sense of the word. These alienware "laptops" do burn the skin if you put it on your lap. Sure it's great for LAN parties etc, but it is not a true mobile computer that you can use in any on-the-go situation. I mean, just look at the girth on this thing (http://www.alienware.com/product_detail_pages/area-51_m7700/area-51_m7700_features.aspx?SysCode=PC-LT-AREA51-M-7700&SubCode=SKU-DEFAULT). The side of it should say HOT!! like the McDonalds coffee cups do, so that you don't burn your crotch.

[AidenShaw]

... we will be stuck with 32bit os which will not benefit 64bit high-end users. I for one am not in for mac users to be relegated to yesterday. Yonah is great, but not if my next Leapard must share its kernel koding between the two different bus widths.
But how many 64-bit users does OSX actually have? Not very many, if they managed to ship a Tiger update that completely disabled 64-bit without anyone noticing!

The Tiger support for 64-bit is extremely lame - no GUI apps, no Cocoa, just services and terminal apps.

But, the OSx64 problem isn't that the Yonah chip is 32-bit - it's that OSX on Intel is 32-bit and Apple has said nothing about it's plans for the next big transition - OSx64.

The DTK (Developer Transition Kit) Intel systems are 64-bit capable, which Apple is running in the 32-bit mode.

Apple could be "moving people to today", but they're choosing "yesterday"....

Maybe a protest at MWSF is in order - when Jobs says "One more thing", the audience should stand and start chanting

W H A T A B O U T 6 4 - B I T ???

[SiliconAddict]

Thanks for the link, but all this does is compare Yonah to desktop architectures. it doesn't really say anything about FP calculations versus current Pentium Ms, which as far as I know, are slightly better.


Read the quote again....

Much like the DivX test, we see that although Yonah has come a long way from Dothan, it is still not competitive with the likes of the Athlon 64 X2. It is a shame, as we were hoping for more out of Intel's FP/SSE enhancements.

Here is the same benchmarks run on Dothan chips

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2129&p=9

[Randall]

Read the quote again....

Much like the DivX test, we see that although Yonah has come a long way from Dothan, it is still not competitive with the likes of the Athlon 64 X2. It is a shame, as we were hoping for more out of Intel's FP/SSE enhancements.You're correct! I was reading this from Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentium_M#Yonah_.26_Sossaman Yonah consists of two cores based on the Banias/Dothan microarchitecture, a 2MB L2 cache shared by both cores, and an arbiter bus that controls L2 cache and FSB access. Floating point performance has been improved through the addition of SSE3 instructions and improvements to SSE and SSE2 implementations, while integer performance decreased slightly due to higher latency cache. Yonah also includes Vanderpool (VT) virtualization technology and the ability to disable one core to conserve power. EM64T (Intel's name for AMD64) will not be available in Yonah.

My appoligies sir, you are correct when talking about FP calculations. I was thinking of Integer calculations. :p

On a side note, I think it will be interresting seeing Steve Jobs tout the Intel x86 architecture. He will only be able to poke fun at Microsoft's operating systems from now on, not the hardware architecture. When he talks about hardware innovation, it will apply to the windows world as well for the most part, which is an interresting twist.

[AidenShaw]

now now let's not get crazy. The fact is that a desktop architecture stuffed up the ass of a laptop is not truely portable in the traditional sense of the word. These alienware "laptops" do burn the skin if you put it on your lap. Sure it's great for LAN parties etc, but it is not a true mobile computer that you can use in any on-the-go situation.
And the 17" Powerbook is "truly portable" ??? ;) I tried to talk a friend out of buying one - "John, it's just too big". He got it anyway, and then two months later also bought a 12" PB because the 17" was just too big to haul around. My grandmother would have said that he had "more money than sense".

"Portable" means many things. To some people, it means very lightweight, fits on the economy class tray table when the seat in front is reclined, and is small enough for an elegant briefcase. (Apple has nothing for these people - it "has to have a DVD drive and ports for...".)

To other people, "portable" means that it can be put in a case and shipped with the other stage equipment (or video gear, or 12 MPixel cameras), and setup on a work bench for on-location editing, sound boarding or shooting. No concern about weight or power (except that the more power the better).

Apple's painted itself into such a corner with the "it's got to be thin" mantra that they're ignoring a sizable market with a large (often expense account) budget.

"Desktop replacement dual-core portable" is not a bad thing, Steve.

[SiliconAddict]

You're correct! I was reading this from Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentium_M#Yonah_.26_Sossaman

My appoligies sir, you are correct when talking about FP calculations. I was thinking of Integer calculations. :p

On a side note, I think it will be interresting seeing Steve Jobs tout the Intel x86 architecture. He will only be able to poke fun at Microsoft's operating systems from now on, not the hardware architecture. When he talks about hardware innovation, it will apply to the windows world as well for the most part, which is an interresting twist.


Now that being said...this was using a desktop chipset in the Yonah tests. Not sure if that could have aided things a bit. In any event we will find out soon enough. :)

[Randall]

And the 17" Powerbook is "truly portable" ??? ;) I tried to talk a friend out of buying one - "John, it's just too big". He got it anyway, and then two months later also bought a 12" PB because the 17" was just too big to haul around. My grandmother would have said that he had "more money than sense".

"Portable" means many things. To some people, it means very lightweight, fits on the economy class tray table when the seat in front is reclined, and is small enough for an elegant briefcase. (Apple has nothing for these people - it "has to have a DVD drive and ports for...".)

To other people, "portable" means that it can be put in a case and shipped with the other stage equipment (or video gear, or 12 MPixel cameras), and setup on a work bench for on-location editing, sound boarding or shooting. No concern about weight or power (except that the more power the better).

Apple's painted itself into such a corner with the "it's got to be thin" mantra that they're ignoring a sizable market with a large (often expense account) budget.

"Desktop replacement dual-core portable" is not a bad thing, Steve.
This is an excellent point. THe 17" Powerbook is probably more awkward to lug around the the alienware "desklap". I agree with you there. I wouldn't mind a thicker laptop, so long as I can comfortably rest it on my lap without burning myself, which Yonah will help with a little bit by consuming less power.

If you ask me, the 15" Powerbook model is the perfect combination of power and portibility, I find the screen on the 12" PB to be too small for my liking, as well as some features missing that are present in the 2 larger models.

[SiliconAddict]

And the 17" Powerbook is "truly portable" ??? ;) I tried to talk a friend out of buying one - "John, it's just too big". He got it anyway, and then two months later also bought a 12" PB because the 17" was just too big to haul around. My grandmother would have said that he had "more money than sense".

I'm in the same boat. Can't really decide what I want. On one hand 17" is droolable. On the other hand a 15” is way more portable. No worries though. I still have a month to make a decision. :eek: :p

[Randall]

I'm in the same boat. Can't really decide what I want. On one hand 17" is droolable. On the other hand a 15” is way more portable. No worries though. I still have a month to make a decision. :eek: :pYeah that is my only tough choice as well. If the 15" and 17" continue to both have all of the same features like they currently do, then it's simply screen real estate versus portability that we're talking about. In that case, for me I would most likely choose portibility. Especially given the fact that the screen resolutions have been recently improved, so you are getting the older 17" resolution in the newer 15" models.

If they only stuff the top-end processor in the 17" model though, then it's an entirely different ballgame.

[fluidinclusion]

Actually no...

PBG4 Ti released Jan 2001 so lets take that:

2001-2002 = 1 year

2002-2003 = 2 years

2003 - 2004 = 3 years

2004 - 2005 = 4 years

If the PB hold the G4 chip till the end of 2006 then we can say its been 5 years. ;) :)

And Jan 2005 - Jan 2006 is the 5th year. Jeez.

[strange days]

Read the quote again....

Much like the DivX test, we see that although Yonah has come a long way from Dothan, it is still not competitive with the likes of the Athlon 64 X2. It is a shame, as we were hoping for more out of Intel's FP/SSE enhancements.

Here is the same benchmarks run on Dothan chips

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2129&p=9


...and if you're not willing to click around, preview tests of the Yonah 2Ghz against Dothan 2Ghz in Divx encoding performance give :

Yonah - 57 frames per second
Dothan - 39.6 frames per second

Way to go !=)

[Randall]

...and if you're not willing to click around, preview tests of the Yonah 2Ghz against Dothan 2Ghz in Divx encoding performance give :

Yonah - 57 frames per second
Dothan - 39.6 frames per second

Way to go !=)
Is that with 2-pass? lol ;)

A better test would have been x264 main profile encoding. Of course that probably would have yielded something like 8 fps versus 6 fps or something laughable.

[dollystereo]

They will not sport Yonah in Ibook, the will put something cheaper, like Pentium M, or Celeron M, that anyway, would outperform the current 133mhz fsb G4

[Prom1]

And I suppose that you believed Apple's claim that the Powermac G5 was the first desktop 64-bit computer, and their claim that the PMG4 was a supercomputer, and those ridiculous GFLOPS claims for every PM ???

:eek:

Well if it was good enough for the United States Government to prevent the very first Apple PowerMac G4 (even the shoddy watered down 50Mhz in all 3 iterations from what was promised) to be shippable to teh Japanese governement because they believed (and even arstechnica) that its cpu could be used in a long ranch nuclear guided missile (may be slightly off on type of missile here); then its good enough for Apple to advertise it in the famous commercial. (I do remember that the news press announced this about a month before the commercial aired).

The DTK (Developer Transition Kit) Intel systems are 64-bit capable, which Apple is running in the 32-bit mode.

Apple could be "moving people to today", but they're choosing "yesterday"....

Maybe a protest at MWSF is in order - when Jobs says "One more thing", the audience should stand and start chanting

W H A T A B O U T 6 4 - B I T ??? Although I'd love to see such an uproar to prod the depest stages of inner planning of Apple from Steve on live presentation ... I doubt he'd concede. BTW, I thought the DTK systems for $999 was actually shipping only a 32-bit cored cpu, NOT a 64-bit capable cpu?! Not sure if its clear anywhere on Apples site?!!

EDIT: However I can imagine how many more developers will code for x86-32bit OS X transition with a shiny new Intel Mac OS X laptop to go portable with.

I just hope to see some reasonable used price offerings from individuals for 2nd revisions of PowerBook G4's @ 12" around the $800-1100 Canadian dollar price range (given the current .85-87 cents to US$ conversion rate). Sure those selling want to fund their new machine purchase, but lets be fair and offer a new switcher something nice and a reasonable price ... they could one day program and making the platform more enjoyable. (yeah right in my dreams)

[Ensoniq]

From osx86project.org, posted 11/21/2005:

http://www.osx86project.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=68&Itemid=2

"First, the Rosetta emulation platform in 10.4.3 build 8F1111A has been upgraded to feature full G4 support, including Altivec. This not only adds a new layer of compatibility to Rosetta, but also improved speed for Altivec-equipped applications. This upgrade is reportedly available as a small downloadable update to build 8F1111."

If this is true (no reason to doubt it's not, considering the source is not a rumor site), then all the worries of AltiVec-enhanced applications "sucking" under Rosetta is no longer an issue. Even under emulation, the increased bus speed and processing power of a dual-core Yonah over a single-core G4 should provide more than enough horsepower for older PPC applications during the transition period.

Developers who have their acts together will NOT be relying on Rosetta as a true "solution" anyway...they will do as Apple has asked and update their apps to Universal Binary format. Any major developer who hasn't got Intel-ready builds already working in their labs doesn't have a right to call themselves an Apple developer at all. I'm not talking about projects ready to ship...but they should at least compile and run on Intel right now, today.

So this whole theory that "Apple can't put Intels in PowerBooks because developers need time to upgrade the pro apps" is nonsense. Current G4-compiled pro apps should work quite well under the AltiVec compatible Rosetta update, with Universal Binary updates as needed for those apps that would see significant performance enhancements under a true Intel compile.

I also discount the theory of any chip less than a Yonah making it into any Intel-based Mac. The iBook and PowerBook today use exactly the same processor. Only minor MHz differences separate the two competing notebook lines...with screen size, resolution, video chip, Firewire 800, and PCMCIA slots being other distinguishing features.

Apple could release new iBooks and PowerBooks on the same exact day, BOTH having dual-core Yonah processors, and use the same slight MHz differences and the other hardware distinctions above to keep the lines separate. There is NO need for Apple to intentionally cripple the iBook with a non-Yonah processor. If anything, having Apple's entire notebook line-up going dual-core at the same time is a major publicity win for Apple.

[aegisdesign]

Before people get carried away with dual core 2Ghz iBooks, a dose of reality.

Here's the Yonah pricing...

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=26062

The top end Yonah is almost ten times the price of a G4. A Yonah as fast as the current G4 is 2-3 times as expensive.

Note they also mention a Celeron M 1.7Ghz coming in January. There's your iBook CPU.

[yoak]

I second that, how else can people on MR keep up tradition with complaining about how much this update suck when something is announced ;)

[sintaxi]

PBs will be Yonah, iBooks will be something cheaper with widescreen. that way both will sell. thats the whole point of having both lines. thats the way it has always been. one one hand you have beutiful and powerful, on the other, beutiful and afordable.

All G4s will be replaced in jan no question about it.

[dekator]

Everything is pointing to WWDC I can't wait hopes its the iBooks.

Not so sure. What makes you think Apple machines with the specified interior will be ready in less than a month ??? ('Cause that's what you seem to say, if I read your 'english' correctly).

[NewbieNerd]

I mean, just look at the girth on this thing (http://www.alienware.com/product_detail_pages/area-51_m7700/area-51_m7700_features.aspx?SysCode=PC-LT-AREA51-M-7700&SubCode=SKU-DEFAULT). The side of it should say HOT!! like the McDonalds coffee cups do, so that you don't burn your crotch.

Yeah, but sneak it into a movie theatre Kramer-style, scald yourself, and you might be looking at a settlement involving a lifetime supply of laptops. :rolleyes:

[840quadra]

Well if it was good enough for the United States Government to prevent the very first Apple PowerMac G4 (even the shoddy watered down 50Mhz in all 3 iterations from what was promised) to be shippable to teh Japanese governement because they believed (and even arstechnica) that its cpu could be used in a long ranch nuclear guided missile (may be slightly off on type of missile here); then its good enough for Apple to advertise it in the famous commercial. (I do remember that the news press announced this about a month before the commercial aired).


First off arstechnica was not at the same caliber then, as it is now. While it was a "Super Computer" in the US (at the time slow to react to technology changes) government's eye, it was no to the rest of the computing world. Apple was (truthfully and legally) able to use this as a marketing gimic, along with a few other "firsts", because of a gap or delay in updating classifications.

I also believe the trade embargo for items of that classification was more against sections of the Middle East, Cuba, and North Korea, at least those are and were countries we are at conflict with. I don't believe Japan was on that list in 1999 (however I could be wrong). I don't believe that the Government ever had any genuine concern with exporting the PM G4, it was only an issue because of a dated speed limit for processing power, as opposed to them worrying about this apple product.

I agree that these were fast computers, and I still love (and collect them), but that doesn't mean I agree with how they were marketed.

Sorry Macrumors for going onto the political tangent with this post.

[gnasher729]

From osx86project.org, posted 11/21/2005:

http://www.osx86project.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=68&Itemid=2

"First, the Rosetta emulation platform in 10.4.3 build 8F1111A has been upgraded to feature full G4 support, including Altivec. This not only adds a new layer of compatibility to Rosetta, but also improved speed for Altivec-equipped applications. This upgrade is reportedly available as a small downloadable update to build 8F1111."

If this is true (no reason to doubt it's not, considering the source is not a rumor site), then all the worries of AltiVec-enhanced applications "sucking" under Rosetta is no longer an issue.

No, it is not a rumor site, it is a site that is all about breaking NDAs and making illegal copies of software. In other words, a site run by criminals, and to me that sends their credibility level straight down to zero.

The other problem is of course that you don't understand at all what the consequences of adding Altivec emulation actually are. It may enable applications to run that refuse to run on a G3, but it may make applications that have both G3 and G4 code paths run slower, possibly a lot slower.

[gnasher729]

The top end Yonah is almost ten times the price of a G4. A Yonah as fast as the current G4 is 2-3 times as expensive.

That is very misleading. There is a single core Yonah which costs $205 instead of $241 for double core at same speed; using that chip would just be stupid. Intel has chips that (just about) match the G4 at similar price, but not the Yonahs. The cheapest useful Yonah is more than twice as fast as any G4 at slightly more than three times the price. The "almost ten times the price" is for the 2.16GHz part which is 200 dollars more than the 2.00GHz.

The reason that the G4 is so cheap is that Freescale doesn't build any high-performance chips! That's why there is no significant difference in speed between iBook and Powerbook: Because Freescale just doesn't have a chip that is faster, no matter how much you are willing to pay! Apple would have gladly paid three times the price for a G4 that runs at twice the speed (with power consumption suitable for a Powerbook), but there is no such chip from Freescale.

[avus]

Well if it was good enough for the United States Government to prevent the very first Apple PowerMac G4 (even the shoddy watered down 50Mhz in all 3 iterations from what was promised) to be shippable to teh Japanese governement because they believed (and even arstechnica) that its cpu could be used in a long ranch nuclear guided missile (may be slightly off on type of missile here); then its good enough for Apple to advertise it in the famous commercial. (I do remember that the news press announced this about a month before the commercial aired).



I don't believe Japan was on that list in 1999 (however I could be wrong).

....

Sorry Macrumors for going onto the political tangent with this post.


:eek:

Didn't you two know that Japan's Earth Simulator had been the world's fastest supercomputer for so long until the end of last year?

And it is for a peaceful purpose.

And no, the Japanese goverment didn't need any freaking help from anybody to build it.

I am really dismayed and appalled by both of you :mad:

[GregA]

Freescale just doesn't have a chip that is faster, no matter how much you are willing to pay! Apple would have gladly paid three times the price for a G4 that runs at twice the speed (with power consumption suitable for a Powerbook), but there is no such chip from Freescale.I suspect we'll never see it in a Mac - but what's the status on the dual core G4 chip Freescale released recently? Is it cheap? Any good?

[ZorPrime]

On a side note, I think it will be interresting seeing Steve Jobs tout the Intel x86 architecture. He will only be able to poke fun at Microsoft's operating systems from now on, not the hardware architecture. When he talks about hardware innovation, it will apply to the windows world as well for the most part, which is an interresting twist.

I think you have a really keen point. :) That’s one reason why I decided not to wait around for the first batch of intel PowerBooks, even though they’ll have better specs than what’s around now. I’ve always liked Apples because they are “different” from the typical PC, from Operating System to CPU. That will no longer be the case, at least in terms of CPU and other innards.

I know it’s not logical :o but I simply don’t like the idea of my Mac being “just like everyone else's Windows PC” on the inside. It’s like spending a wallop of $$ on a BMW, only to find yourself tied with a Toyota while accelerating on an onramp because both have the same A-frame, transmission, and engine block. [Edit] Both cars being made the same year [Edit]

I’m going to wait out the intel transition until Apple starts developing its own custom/kick-rear chips with intel, that will only be used on Macs. :cool: Once that happens, then Steve will once again claim his Macs truly do have guts better than the other players and therefore worth giving him those wild profit margins. I’m going to wait until Rev-C before getting my next PB.

Customized Mac-Specific CPUs will totally kick bottom and Mac will have unique guts again. :cool:

http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2005/11/20051122092351.shtml

[840quadra]

:eek:

Didn't you two know that Japan's Earth Simulator had been the world's fastest supercomputer for so long until the end of last year?

And it is for a peaceful purpose.

And no, the Japanese goverment didn't need any freaking help from anybody to build it.

I am really dismayed and appalled by both of you :mad:

Thanks sir (madam?)

I am aware of the earth simulator, and it's peaceful purpose, and the fact that Japan needs no Technology help from anyone. I was typing in regards to nations that have trade embargoes with the United States, while also stating that Japan is not on that list of terrorist nations. I (like yourself) am questioning why Japan was mentioned in the other persons post.

Sorry for not being clear, but were exactly did I say Japan needed our help, or that they were a terrorist threat?

[alfismoney]

And Jan 2005 - Jan 2006 is the 5th year. Jeez.

Actually, when I opened up the cast on my 667 (rev b, which I purchased refurbished), the parts were marked by hand in pen as having been assembled in December 2000. I don't know about you, but that makes it seem like Apple completed design on the original 400/500 tibooks closer to six years ago.

[ZorPrime]

I suspect we'll never see it in a Mac - but what's the status on the dual core G4 chip Freescale released recently? Is it cheap? Any good?

I heard it's destined for the imbedded market. :( I'm not sure but I also read somewhere that it's sampling and won't be in mass production for a while. The 7448 started mass production a month or so ago.

the MPC8641D would have really been nice to see with its 667MHz bus.

3rd Paragraph http://www.electronics.ca/reports/semiconductor_applications/network_applications.html

http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=1142
http://www.freescale.com/webapp/sps/site/overview.jsp?code=DRPPCDUALCORE

[AidenShaw]

Well if it was good enough for the United States Government to prevent the very first Apple PowerMac G4 (even the shoddy watered down 50Mhz in all 3 iterations from what was promised) to be shippable to teh Japanese governement because they believed (and even arstechnica) that its cpu could be used in a long ranch nuclear guided missile (may be slightly off on type of missile here); then its good enough for Apple to advertise it in the famous commercial.
Yes, and under the same rules the Sony Playstation 2 was also embargoed from certain countries! (http://news.com.com/Life+imitates+art+for+Apple/2100-1001_3-259224.html)

The US govt "supercomputer" definitions are antiquated, and the MTOPS ratings used in them have nothing to do with actual system performance. (The "T" means "Theoretical".)

But, good ads for the people who don't understand how little they matter! "Being a supercomputer" and "meeting the US govt definition of a supercomputer" are two very different things. :)


BTW, I thought the DTK systems for $999 was actually shipping only a 32-bit cored cpu, NOT a 64-bit capable cpu?! Not sure if its clear anywhere on Apples site?!!
Like Apple would post a note saying that "we're running this 64-bit system in 32-bit mode" ??? ;)

http://www.macnn.com/articles/05/06/09/intel.mac.performance/

"Apple's Developer Transition Kit features a Pentium 4 660 processor running at 3.6 GHz, according to various online reports."

"The test machines support 64 bit extensions, but Apple's software does not yet support that technology. The developer units include FireWire 400 and USB 2. USB 2 booting is supported, but FireWire booting is not. "

Every current Intel desktop and server chip, including the Celerons, are 64-bit. Only Dothan (and Yonah) are 32-bit, and soon Merom will make it 64-bit across the line.

(Of course, Intel is still selling some older technology 32-bit chips for long-term contracts and such... All new manufacturing lines, except for Yonah, are 64-bit.)

[SiliconAddict]

Before people get carried away with dual core 2Ghz iBooks, a dose of reality.

Here's the Yonah pricing...

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=26062

The top end Yonah is almost ten times the price of a G4. A Yonah as fast as the current G4 is 2-3 times as expensive.

Note they also mention a Celeron M 1.7Ghz coming in January. There's your iBook CPU.


Note that Apple and Dell are prob going to get DEEP discounts on those prices. I'd expect to see the price slashed in half if not more. I still don't expect any dullies in an iBook until the trans over to Meron.

[j_maddison]

Is there anyone else who is pessimistic about this switch over? I'm starting to think that Apple will end up putting cheap kit together and selling it at premium prices.

I'm also a little confused by the fact that everyone is saying the G4 is such a slow chip. I've not noticed a significant speed difference between friends laptops who are using pentium M chips running at 1.7ghz and my own 12" PB.

The final bit that baffles me is how people heralded the G5 as being significantly more advanced than anything intel was offering, and then I remember posts saying that the G4 would smoke the G5 if it had a comparable frontside bus. Now there is mention of a dual core G4 with a 667mhz frontside bus, so wouldn't this technically smoke all these intel chips ??

I don't know allot about chips, as you can probably tell, but there seems to be allot of contradictions around here on these forums.

Jason

[SiliconAddict]

No, it is not a rumor site, it is a site that is all about breaking NDAs and making illegal copies of software. In other words, a site run by criminals, and to me that sends their credibility level straight down to zero.

The other problem is of course that you don't understand at all what the consequences of adding Altivec emulation actually are. It may enable applications to run that refuse to run on a G3, but it may make applications that have both G3 and G4 code paths run slower, possibly a lot slower.

Umm they aren't breaking any laws....so what they are doing isn't criminal. NDA's and EULA aren't law. You can bet that the MPAA and RIAA wish they were. Its amazing how some people miss that fact.

[SiliconAddict]

Is there anyone else who is pessimistic about this switch over? I'm starting to think that Apple will end up putting cheap kit together and selling it at premium prices.

I'm also a little confused by the fact that everyone is saying the G4 is such a slow chip. I've not noticed a significant speed difference between friends laptops who are using pentium M chips running at 1.7ghz and my own 12" PB.

The final bit that baffles me is how people heralded the G5 as being significantly more advanced than anything intel was offering, and then I remember posts saying that the G4 would smoke the G5 if it had a comparable frontside bus. Now there is mention of a dual core G4 with a 667mhz frontside bus, so wouldn't this technically smoke all these intel chips ??

I don't know allot about chips, as you can probably tell, but there seems to be allot of contradictions around here on these forums.

Jason

Then you haven't been paying attention. :p Trust me. The M smokes even the top of the PowerBook line in performance. Now Altavec enhanced apps may narrow the gap but it doesn't close it. The G4 is a 4 year old CPU that has had little forward momentum in the last 3 years. Eyeballing the differences in speed is a bad way of doing it. Do you have a faster HD then him? Do you have more RAM? Does he have the SPU scaled down? What about his drivers? firmware up to date? and on and on and on. And then there is simply the, likely, fact they are running Windows.

[aegisdesign]

That is very misleading. There is a single core Yonah which costs $205 instead of $241 for double core at same speed; using that chip would just be stupid. Intel has chips that (just about) match the G4 at similar price, but not the Yonahs. The cheapest useful Yonah is more than twice as fast as any G4 at slightly more than three times the price. The "almost ten times the price" is for the 2.16GHz part which is 200 dollars more than the 2.00GHz.

It's misleading if you only quote part of my post. My point is, posters on this thread are starting to wish for the impossible. The G4 in the iBook costs about $50 I'd guess since it's a couple of notches down the ladder from the top 1.67Ghz 7447As. Expecting 2Ghz+ dual cores which cost over $400 to go in an iBook is insane. Even the $241 part, which is a Dual 1.66Ghz chip, you mentioned is still a lot more expensive. I think we'll be lucky to see that. I suspect it'll actually be the single core Celeron M 390 going into the iBook if we see an update in January.

The problem is, if Apple want to compete against the Acers and Dells of the world then they're going to have to trim their margins or lower the chips to match. Before, with the G4 it wasn't directly comparable. Now it is.

The reason that the G4 is so cheap is that Freescale doesn't build any high-performance chips! That's why there is no significant difference in speed between iBook and Powerbook: Because Freescale just doesn't have a chip that is faster, no matter how much you are willing to pay! Apple would have gladly paid three times the price for a G4 that runs at twice the speed (with power consumption suitable for a Powerbook), but there is no such chip from Freescale.

No, the G4 is cheap because it has a fraction of the transistors on the die in comparison to an x86 chip. It costs a lot less to manufacture in theory. There are 30-40 million transistors in a G4. There are 150 million + in Yonah per core and they use a currently more expensive leading edge process. Freescale are still on well established 90nm.

[Cold_Steel]

Hi all,

Lets be serious here. I am a power user and I have a dual 2.7 G5 at the mo for my Lightwave 3D use with a Quaddie 2.5 on the way! I also do a lot of travelling for my company and I need portable power. At the moment only winblows lappies can give me the power i need i.e with a Go 7800.

Apple is never gonna wack in a hi spec Dual Core Pentium M and a Go 7800 or an X800 is it. So for now Apple is shooting itslef in the foot, as it is losing customers to Winblows as that is the only true mobile power around.

[Randall]

I think you have a really keen point. :) That’s one reason why I decided not to wait around for the first batch of intel PowerBooks, even though they’ll have better specs than what’s around now. I’ve always liked Apples because they are “different” from the typical PC, from Operating System to CPU. That will no longer be the case, at least in terms of CPU and other innards.

I know it’s not logical :o but I simply don’t like the idea of my Mac being “just like everyone else's Windows PC” on the inside. It’s like spending a wallop of $$ on a BMW, only to find yourself tied with a Toyota while accelerating on an onramp because both have the same A-frame, transmission, and engine block.

I’m going to wait out the intel transition until Apple starts developing its own custom/kick-rear chips with intel, that will only be used on Macs. :cool: Once that happens, then Steve will once again claim his Macs truly do have guts better than the other players and therefore worth giving him those wild profit margins. I’m going to wait until Rev-C before getting my next PB.

Customized Mac-Specific CPUs will totally kick bottom and Mac will have unique guts again. :cool:

http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2005/11/20051122092351.shtml

I understand completely how you feel. But you could look at it as BMW having a superior car, then choosing/unable to update the model for 5 years. Meanwhile the Honda Accord has been revolutionising their cars, and they have boatloads more coming along the way. The most recent model has 2x more horsepower and gas milage then the 5 year old BMW you love. What would you do? Pshycologically you still feel the BMW is better because of it's brand name and reputation... but in the meantime they've let all of that slip to ****.

[840quadra]

Yes, and under the same rules the Sony Playstation 2 was also embargoed from certain countries! (http://news.com.com/Life+imitates+art+for+Apple/2100-1001_3-259224.html)

The US govt "supercomputer" definitions are antiquated, and the MTOPS ratings used in them have nothing to do with actual system performance. (The "T" means "Theoretical".)

But, good ads for the people who don't understand how little they matter! "Being a supercomputer" and "meeting the US govt definition of a supercomputer" are two very different things. :)



Oh sure make a better reply to that post then mine, and you even included links!

I shall try harder next time ;)


I understand completely how you feel. But you could look at it as BMW having a superior car, then choosing/unable to update the model for 5 years. Meanwhile the Honda Accord has been revolutionising their cars, and they have boatloads more coming along the way. The most recent model has 2x more horsepower and gas milage then the 5 year old BMW you love. What would you do? Pshycologically you still feel the BMW is better because of it's brand name and reputation... but in the meantime they've let all of that slip to ****.

I don't agree with you at all on that, but to debate this topic go to Bimmerforums (http://www.bimmerforums.com) ;) .

That being said, I am finding out more and more that car analogies don't work when talking about computer hardware / equipment. And I am a car/ IT guy!

[Randall]

Apple is never gonna wack in a hi spec Dual Core Pentium M and a Go 7800 or an X800 is it. So for now Apple is shooting itslef in the foot, as it is losing customers to Winblows as that is the only true mobile power around. We'll see what comes out in January. Your jaw may drop. ;)

[j_maddison]

Hi all,

Lets be serious here. I am a power user and I have a dual 2.7 G5 at the mo for my Lightwave 3D use with a Quaddie 2.5 on the way! I also do a lot of travelling for my company and I need portable power. At the moment only winblows lappies can give me the power i need i.e with a Go 7800.

Apple is never gonna wack in a hi spec Dual Core Pentium M and a Go 7800 or an X800 is it. So for now Apple is shooting itslef in the foot, as it is losing customers to Winblows as that is the only true mobile power around.

See thats my worry. If i'm looking at a wintel machine with much higher specs for a simular cost, then I worry that I'll end up finding a hacked copy of OSX and shove that on the windows lappy.

Now I know alot of people will say thats illegal, but I'm sure I'm not the only person whos thinking it.

I think Steve might be about to make a big blunder with this switch.

Jason

[Randall]

Is there anyone else who is pessimistic about this switch over? I'm starting to think that Apple will end up putting cheap kit together and selling it at premium prices. Is that any different from the G4 laptops they are trying to sell you at the moment? In all fairness, they used to be top knotch machines, but recently they have allowed an old and tired chip to remain in the lineup for far too long.

[strange days]

See thats my worry. If i'm looking at a wintel machine with much higher specs for a simular cost, then I worry that I'll end up finding a hacked copy of OSX and shove that on the windows lappy.

Now I know alot of people will say thats illegal, but I'm sure I'm not the only person whos thinking it.

I think Steve might be about to make a big blunder with this switch.

Jason

...i'd rather run winbooze on a powerbook, weird ! :eek:

[Dont Hurt Me]

Motorola fanboys should give it up, The G4 is an old chip that Moto has a had a very hard time getting more out of it. Lets not talk paper please. Intel is about to ship these things and i have seen benches that put these next to my Athlon 64 which matches up well to dual 2.0 G5s.(except in games, in games those G5s are hammered) So you will have that kind of performance in books. Im sure Apple is looking at the low end Yonahs. They could intro a 1.6 and not only would it be a faster clock but a much faster chip then G4. Just use the faster Yonahs or even dual cores in the powerline, use the singles in the consumer line. Also iMac is primed and ready for the new CPU with its new bus. PowerMac I bet gets a brand new design. Apple could shock everyone with a faster then expected switch of all models this year to the Intel platform:) kick out that that odd dog!

[JJTiger1]

I don't think Apple is concerned with the relationship of the old PPC line to the new Intel line. They may even eliminate the ibook /PowerBook names to alleviate this comparison.

I think Apple will just release an Intel based portable and let the specs fall where they may. They will probably continue to sell PPC ibooks / PowerBooks even while new intel laptops are released. Eventually they will slowly eliminate the PPC laptops as they slowly introduce new intel designs.

There will be users who still want PPC based laptops even after the new intels are introduced. The reasons might be; Pro software that won't run in rosetta, Classic apps that won't run on x86 OS X, or just because they don't want to be rev. A owners of an all new hardware, all new OS, all new software system.

I totally agree.

It is a historical fact:

Adios 680x0 architecture = adios software that required Mac OS 8.1 or earlier.

Adios G3/G4 architecture = adios software that required Mac OS 10.2.6 or earlier.

Buenos dias MacIntel architecture = Buenos dias software that can run on "Intel Inside".

Steve Jobs was really happy about the software develpers who transitioned their software to OSX. He kept a running count as to how many developers made the transition.

In a few weeks, he will keep us informed as to how many developers have made the transition to MacIntel.

Today: Dec 15, 2005:
Top of the line 17 inch PowerBook: 1.67 ghz processor, max ram (2 gig), 100 gig 7200 rpm hard drive, 128MB video card (upgrade not available) and NO extended AppleCare = $2999 USD.

Equivalent Dell: XPS M170 17 inch: 2.0 ghz processor (not the upgrade-choice of two: 2.13 & 2.26), max ram (2 gig), 100 gig 7200 rpm hard drive, DVD burner (extra), full wireless (extra), 256MB video (not the upgrade from geforce 6800 to 7800), and no extended warranty: $3117 USD.

Extra $118 to buy a virus prone machine.
... but it's faster and it has more video ram.

Either way, MacIntel or WinTel, you gotta buy a whole new suite of software.
=-=-=
JJ Tiger

[aegisdesign]

Then you haven't been paying attention. :p Trust me. The M smokes even the top of the PowerBook line in performance. Now Altavec enhanced apps may narrow the gap but it doesn't close it. The G4 is a 4 year old CPU that has had little forward momentum in the last 3 years. Eyeballing the differences in speed is a bad way of doing it. Do you have a faster HD then him? Do you have more RAM? Does he have the SPU scaled down? What about his drivers? firmware up to date? and on and on and on. And then there is simply the, likely, fact they are running Windows.

The Pentium M only really smokes a G4 in integer based benchmarks and anything very memory intensive that has to go through the CPU. That 2MB cache comes in handy. I've a 1.7Ghz Pentium M laptop and it's a lot slower at encoding in iTunes and transcoding video than a G4 and much slower than a G5. AltiVec makes a difference there and in some Photoshop filters at least until you get bandwidth bound instead of CPU bound.

It'd be interesting to see how the new Powerbooks do versus a Pentium M as they now run the Intrepid2 controller at 333Mhz instead of the previous 167Mhz direct FSB 1:1 lock. In theory since a lot of the time the CPU isn't involved with moving data about, the 333Mhz Intrepid2 has twice the memory access bandwidth available so is able for instance to DMA data off disk to memory twice as fast as the old controller.

Where the Pentium-M Windows laptops score well though is in graphics performance and in particular OpenGL. And that says more about Apple's slow OpenGL implementation than the processor. I'd be surprised if that changes with a MacIntel so expect us to still lose miserably in Cinebench. Dissing Windows performance is going to come back and haunt us if given the same hardware Windows is faster.

Of course the 1.67Ghz G4 v 1.7Ghz Pentium-M comparison is academic as there's a dual core 2.16Ghz Pentium-M in January and more to follow and no faster G4s or a laptop G5 on the horizon.

[840quadra]

Lets not talk paper please.

Um, then what is this ?

Intel is about to ship these things and i have seen benches that put these next to my Athlon 64 which matches up well to dual 2.0 G5s.(except in games, in games those G5s are hammered) So you will have that kind of performance in books.

;) :D

[Hattig]

Hi all,

Lets be serious here. I am a power user and I have a dual 2.7 G5 at the mo for my Lightwave 3D use with a Quaddie 2.5 on the way! I also do a lot of travelling for my company and I need portable power. At the moment only winblows lappies can give me the power i need i.e with a Go 7800.

Apple is never gonna wack in a hi spec Dual Core Pentium M and a Go 7800 or an X800 is it. So for now Apple is shooting itslef in the foot, as it is losing customers to Winblows as that is the only true mobile power around.

Apple had better be providing an option of a top-end Yonah and a top-end graphics chip with their next updates, because they're going to be compared directly to PC notebooks now. If Dell has a 2.2+GHz laptop and Apple doesn't, then it looks bad for Apple.

I suspect that Apple may now offer processor upgrades on their laptops, if you want to pay the extra money. For example, the 15" might come with a 1.8GHz Yonah by default, but for an extra $200 you can have a 2GHz Yonah, and for an extra $500 a 2.2GHz Yonah.

PS: It's 'Gloucestershire'.

[backdraft]

All this less watts/heat issue is BS, the X86 architecture is archaic. The PowerPC uses less watts/heat NOW. Stick 2 Intel chips in a tower and see how much heat they produce and how many watts they used. Once PPC goes 65nm you'll see. Face it Apple is TOO cheap to pay IBM to develop the PPC. They make billions and can't spare a couple million come on!
36942

[gnasher729]

I'm also a little confused by the fact that everyone is saying the G4 is such a slow chip. I've not noticed a significant speed difference between friends laptops who are using pentium M chips running at 1.7ghz and my own 12" PB.

The difference is that your friends are running Windows and you are running MacOS X. Now if they are running the whole range of virus checkers, malware checkers, anti-sypware that you need on Windows, then that Pentium M probably spends more processing power on that alone than your poor slow G4 has available to do everything!

[Randall]

I totally agree.

It is a historical fact:

Adios 680x0 architecture = adios software that required Mac OS 8.1 or earlier.

Adios G3/G4 architecture = adios software that required Mac OS 10.2.6 or earlier.

Buenos dias MacIntel architecture = Buenos dias software that can run on "Intel Inside".

Steve Jobs was really happy about the software develpers who transitioned their software to OSX. He kept a running count as to how many developers made the transition.

In a few weeks, he will keep us informed as to how many developers have made the transition to MacIntel.

Today: Dec 15, 2005:
Top of the line 17 inch PowerBook: 1.67 ghz processor, max ram (2 gig), 100 gig 7200 rpm hard drive, 128MB video card (upgrade not available) and NO extended AppleCare = $2999 USD.

Equivalent Dell: XPS M170 17 inch: 2.0 ghz processor (not the upgrade-choice of two: 2.13 & 2.26), max ram (2 gig), 100 gig 7200 rpm hard drive, DVD burner (extra), full wireless (extra), 256MB video (not the upgrade from geforce 6800 to 7800), and no extended warranty: $3117 USD.

Extra $118 to buy a virus prone machine.
... but it's faster and it has more video ram.

Either way, MacIntel or WinTel, you gotta buy a whole new suite of software.
=-=-=
JJ Tiger
That is a good post. Should speak volumes to people that still think G4 can hold a candle to the latest x86 laptops. I am sure Apple will be rolling out the x86 version of Tiger that has been co-developed along with the PPC version since OS X 10.0. Let's hope it will be a seamless transition and the general public with no knowledge of the switch will not have too much to think about.

[toneloco2881]

So they're at 65nm BIG WHOOP! PPC and AMD will still out perform them and once they go 65nm watch out!
36942
LMAO....AMD isn't slated to intro 65nm tech till q3 06 at the earliest. What happens beyond that? Intel is the ONLY company with enough resources to comfortably move beyond with further transistor shrinkage. Talented as AMD is, they just don't have the capital to compete with intel in the long run imho. Look at the pentium-m for example. Intel saw a problem, and threw a couple billion dollars to a fab team in Israel to fix it. Their doing the same thing with their upcoming desktop architecture, after the disaster that was prescott. Don't get me wrong, I'm a huge AMD fan but realistically speaking, in the long run I believe Intel is a much wiser choice.

[Randall]

All this less watts/heat issue is BS, the X86 architecture is archaic. The PowerPC uses less watts/heat NOW. Oh really?? Care to post some hard numbers to back up that claim?

[AidenShaw]

Now if they are running the whole range of virus checkers, malware checkers, anti-sypware that you need on Windows, then that Pentium M probably spends more processing power on that alone than your poor slow G4 has available to do everything!
It's interesting to see the myth about how malware tools slow the system down turning into "accepted fact" on these boards....

Sure, the occasional full scan puts a load on a system, but the real-time stuff that's always on is virtually unnoticeable.

[Sunrunner]

It's interesting to see the myth about how malware tools slow the system down turning into "accepted fact" on these boards....

Sure, the occasional full scan puts a load on a system, but the real-time stuff that's always on is virtually unnoticeable.


Of course these tools slow the system. While you are correct that these items have an impact of a varying nature, the impact is still there. The effect is most pronounced when tools are utilized that perform "real time scanning", as these tools recheck system components each time a new process is started or a new file is installed.

[Sunrunner]

LMAO....AMD isn't slated to intro 65nm tech till q3 06 at the earliest. What happens beyond that? Intel is the ONLY company with enough resources to comfortably move beyond with further transistor shrinkage. Talented as AMD is, they just don't have the capital to compete with intel in the long run imho. Look at the pentium-m for example. Intel saw a problem, and threw a couple billion dollars to a fab team in Israel to fix it. Their doing the same thing with their upcoming desktop architecture, after the disaster that was prescott. Don't get me wrong, I'm a huge AMD fan but realistically speaking, in the long run I believe Intel is a much wiser choice.


Deep pockets, heavy intellectual resources, and a solid processor roadmap are all good reasons to say, I think, that the "Mactel" decision was a very good one for the future of Apple.