Intel Mac mini at MacWorld San Francisco in January?

[MacRumors]

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

Forbes reports (http://www.forbes.com/markets/2005/11/07/apple-intel-video-ipod-1107markets03.html?partner=yahootix) on comments by Benjamin A. Reitzes of UBS Investment Research.

The analyst expects "more video content and digital entertainment offerings at Macworld in January".

Also hinted at is the possibility of an early release of the Intel-based Macs, which have officially been expected to be shipping "before June 2006". According to "checks", Apple may be able to ship the Intel Macs earlier than that timeframe, with the possibility of an Intel Mac mini released in January.

[miloblithe]

That would indeed be early. I'd hope the developers would be ready.

[bennyek]

Holy Crap. Apple is really on the ball with this one. So much for the apple delay we are all used to. I would expect maybe a powermac intel to come out first, but oh well I won't copmplain!
Then again! Maybe Mac minis should be first. I would buy one.

[Chaszmyr]

This sounds kind of dangerous... But I suppose it doesn't matter when it's released, I think the very first Intel Mac is going to have poor software support no matter what. Is there anyone with an intel developer box that can tell me I'm wrong?

[Chaszmyr]

Holy Crap. Apple is really on the ball with this one. So much for the apple delay we are all used to.

Wait for them to actually come out before you say that too emphatically :rolleyes:


I would expect maybe a powermac intel to come out first, but oh well I won't copmplain!

Why? The new PowerMac G5 Quad is more than competitive with its x86 counterparts, and people who buy PowerMacs generally have hefty software that they need, and it wouldn't be wise to release an Intel PowerMac before all of those developers have their software ready.

[denial]

At Mac Mini prices I'll happily buy one, if only to be a "guinea pig".

[JDOG_]

Mac Mini seems like a good candidate to be one of the first boxes. I mean, its better than starting with a Powermac since in all reality, the next-gen intel chips won't be ready en mass until closer to the middle of the year. I can easily see them popping a dual-core chip in there with a nice little graphics card and finally giving it a decent speed bump.

We can dream :)

[miketcool]

Thats my Apple, always going big by starting small.

[lunchbox]

As cool as that would be, it will be a while before I, personally, will upgrade to an Intel mac. The power increases will certainly be interesting, but I'm not convinced that all my old software will run on these new machines... I assume that the developers will offer upgrades to the intel versions, but I bet these will not be free. :rolleyes:

Besides, why just the mac mini? If Apple's going to change something as major as their architecture, wouldn't it make more sense to release an entire lineup all at once? I realize that they'll have to start somewhere, but the mac mini's just a small portion of their market.

[vouder17]

I think the sooner that apple goes Intel the better. Apple will no doubt first start with consumer computers like the iBook and the Mac Mini, as the owners of these computers dont rely heavily on optimized software such as Photoshop for Intel etc. So instead apple will have the first Intel Mac out and any software that needs to be run by those people is already Intel i.e. iPhoto, iTunes etc, and for the rest there is Rosetta.
I am seriously in the market for a new laptop but i dont want to buy the current G4 because i just believe that if i wait till Jan/Feb i will most probably get better bang for my buck.

My 2 Cents

[mac-er]

That would indeed be early. I'd hope the developers would be ready.

I don't understand why they cannot go ahead and do the transition instead of dragging it out. They've already confirmed that OS X will work on Intel. They've confirmed that all the software out right now will run on Intel with Rosetta.

Who cares if the developers are ready?

[kwajo.com]

i think it makes sense to start with the mini. think about it, most people using the mini are going to be using iLife and those sort of bundled apps, which of course will be Intel ready right at the shipping date. it's a lot harder to introduce a pro machine early and expect all the business critical apps that professionals use to be ready bug-free right off the bat

[Fabio_gsilva]

Again, I think it's important to hold on our horses, because only in much later this year, or in the begining of january maybe we could se if this buzz about earlier intel macs is true...

I'm not a pessimistic, and I'm all for Apple to release new astonishing computers as soon as it's possible, but if SJ said that the first intel mac would be released about june next year, this is something we should consider. Things use to come later than everybody expects...

For now, like good boys that we sure are, let's calmly wait...

[denial]

I'm calm but in an excited sort of way:p

[hyperpasta]

A second-generation all-new Intel Mac mini with Front Row (slighty different design) at MWFS would generate a lot of hype. Maybe even with a 30-day Test Drive plan (cough). Maybe even an ad campaign! It would be a huge swithcer magnet.

On the other hand, it would make the iBook and Powerbook look kind of weak. My guess is a Mac mini with Front Row and a Powerbook with iSight, both with Intel. The iBook will come later without the iSight and with Mac mini clock speeds/graphics.

[hyperpasta]

Again, I think it's important to hold on our horses, because only in much later this year, or in the begining of january maybe we could se if this buzz about earlier intel macs is true...

I'm not a pessimistic, and I'm all for Apple to release new astonishing computers as soon as it's possible, but if SJ said that the first intel mac would be released about june next year, this is something we should consider. Things use to come later than everybody expects...

For now, like good boys that we sure are, let's calmly wait...

He said BY June 2006.

[GetSome681]

but I'm not convinced that all my old software will run on these new machines... I assume that the developers will offer upgrades to the intel versions, but I bet these will not be free. :rolleyes:



With Rosetta all of your old software will run just fine. I basically see no downside to starting with the mini as it gives an impetus to developers to get going and most mini buyers aren't power users and probably won't even notice the slight slowdown while using Rosetta.

[johnnyjibbs]

I wouldn't be surprised if the Mac mini was the first to go Intel as it is the lowest power Mac (excluding eMac for education users). That said, it's a mighty small space to put a hot P4 or Celeron into - must be a Pentium M processor or something if it's using an existing one.

[Photorun]

Considering Apple's MO is to "release" something and then actually, you know, HAVE the items available to ship two to three months later (COUGH G5 PowerMac, 17" PowerBook, others, COUGH) I'd say this is feasable. Actually it may be a good idea because then developers would have easily affordable machines in the wild not to mention, as above poster denial said, guinea pigs would be out there before some of the higher end products would hit the shelves.

If Rosetta is cracked up to what it should be, honestly, the conversion to the unassuming user wouldn't be all that noticeable, especially in the Mini. Most all of Apple's stuff has been ported already and we've read old PPC stuff running from 30% to 80% the speed on current models. If this Intel processor stuff is what it's cracked up to be for the jump, and if you're using something not that processor intensive (i.e. just about most anything excepting games) most people wouldn't notice. I doubt gamers buy Mac Mini's anyways.

Sooo the more you add all that up, if this is all true, I think it's friggin' brilliant! I hope they can get good supplies from Intel. But again, "announcing" and having for Apple has quite often been two different things.

[steve_hill4]

Mac Minis will come with Pentium M inside, (hopefully no sticker outside though, or it gets pealed off), but if the PB gets their iSight and other rumoured upgrades in Januray too, I can't wait. Need to get that wireless network set up in time for January, one way or another though.

[MacSA]

Theres a massive gap performance wise between the mini and the iMac now... the mini needs a big performance boost, maybe going intel will provide that.

[JoeG4]

http://forums.macnn.com/showthread.php?t=263394

What speed increase?

Fun test, interesting notes:

Dell 1.4GHz Pentium M: 2:53
Mac Mini 1.25GHz: 2:23
IBM 1.6GHz Pentium M: 2:14
1.5GHz PB: 2:04
Dual 800 G4: 2:03 (That's a 4 year old machine)

iMac G5 2GHz: 1:46


Dualcore Pentium D 3.2GHz: 56s
Dualcore G5 2.3GHz: 42s
Dual 2.7GHz G5: 37s

[dangil]

the processor doesn't mind.... apple should upgrade de GPU of ALL macs..... x600, 9200, 6600... Go 5200, 9700 ... that's just a bad joke......

the iMac G5 should have at least a x800... the mini, at least a x600... the power macs at least a 6600 GT.... the powerbooks, at least a go 6600....

[Peace]

From what I've read on Dev Kit related sites the transition is going quit well.There are many apps that have been ported to the OSX86 without using rosetta.
I even read somewhere that Firefox runs faster through rosetta on the X86 than it does natively on the PPC.

Mac Mini and iBook using the X86 in January is not without merit.

[Lord Blackadder]

I wouldn't be surprised if the Mac mini was the first to go Intel as it is the lowest power Mac (excluding eMac for education users). That said, it's a mighty small space to put a hot P4 or Celeron into - must be a Pentium M processor or something if it's using an existing one.

I'd bet the farm that the Intel Mac Mini will use a mobile chip (and hopefully Apple will never use a Celeron in anything)

It could go Intel first - it certainly would be the simplest machine to redesign.

[AidenShaw]

I wouldn't be surprised if the Mac mini was the first to go Intel as it is the lowest power Mac (excluding eMac for education users). That said, it's a mighty small space to put a hot P4 or Celeron into - must be a Pentium M processor or something if it's using an existing one.
Apple's been telling developers to code for the existing Pentium M "Dothan" chips (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=1740048&postcount=64).

This fits well with a MiniMac intro in Dec/Jan.

[BigEvan23]

I just bought a Mac Mini for my kitchen's HDTV and I was thinking how its just as powerful as my nearly maxed out and upgraded sawtooth tower. I would love to replace that big boy with a little mini resting under the 23 incher...so this would be just perfect. So far I am quite impressed with the mini and since I stopped doing heavy graphic/video work it would be a great solution.

4 Macs...8 iPods...and a whole lotta Apple lovin!!!

-E

[Flowbee]

i think it makes sense to start with the mini. think about it, most people using the mini are going to be using iLife and those sort of bundled apps, which of course will be Intel ready right at the shipping date. it's a lot harder to introduce a pro machine early and expect all the business critical apps that professionals use to be ready bug-free right off the bat

Bingo! Give this man a prize.

[devilot]

i think it makes sense to start with the mini. think about it, most people using the mini are going to be using iLife and those sort of bundled apps, which of course will be Intel ready right at the shipping date.I agree... and if there really will be intel mac minis in January, I might just have to splurge to get my mom one to use at home-- seems like lately, she's had more of an interest in this thing called the internet. :p She works in the high tech industry and yet has no clue about the internet or how to even use a MS word. :o I'm hoping a Mac mini will be basic enough and simple enough to not overwhelm her.

[Finiksa]

must be a Pentium M processor or something if it's using an existing one.

Of course it will be, the P4 architecture is dead. All of Intel's processor lines will be based off the Pentium M core from next year.

It makes sense for Apple to use older and cheaper Centrino chips in a Mac mini just prior to new generation dual core chips being released, which no doubt will go into the Power systems.

[bennyek]

I guess I agree with you guys about the mac mini getting the first intel chips. As much as I would LIKE the Powermac to get it first, it does make more sense for the mini to be the test.

[aquajet]

I don't understand why they cannot go ahead and do the transition instead of dragging it out. They've already confirmed that OS X will work on Intel. They've confirmed that all the software out right now will run on Intel with Rosetta.

Who cares if the developers are ready?

Because we're talking about an architecture change over five different product lines. These things take time, can you really expect Apple to release new Intel iBooks, PowerBooks, minis, iMacs and PowerMacs all at once? That's just crazy.

[DakotaGuy]

If they do this the Mac Mini will be WAY faster then the iMac G5. No one would buy an iMac after January.

[nagromme]

I've always thought the the first Intel Mac announcement (and MAYBE shipping?) was most likely in January.

Many developers are ready, Rosetta seems to do great in many other cases, and low-end consumers (Mac Mini market) have less varied needs--AND fewer demands for top performance--than pros. If they had to run a few things on Rosetta, on a chip faster than G4 to start with, they'd be OK for a few months. And most of their common needs would be bet by Apple's OWN bundled apps which are excellent and already Intel-native.

In short, the transition is such a big shift that it WILL have rough edges no matter WHAT, but a Mac Mini in January COULD be practical all the same. I say 2-in-3 chance.

Followed, I hope, by PowerBooks ASAP! :)

[devilot]

If they do this the Mac Mini will be WAY faster then the iMac G5. No one would buy an iMac after January.I disagree... w/ an iMac you get a gorgeous display as well; I think they're two pretty different machines and that there are distinct pros and cons for many a customer... plus, you know that some people will still long for a G5. ;)

[wilmor42]

If they do this the Mac Mini will be WAY faster then the iMac G5. No one would buy an iMac after January.

i second that..:cool:

[marmanold]

I hope this is true! I am in desperate need of a new computer. Because of my course of study I need a Windows box for programming and a Mac for everything else. I only have enough money for one computer. This would be so great! I could buy one computer and have everything I need: Windows for when I have to code Windows apps and Mac OS X for everything else I do.

Please, please Apple, let this be true!

P.S. - Could y'all make an inexpensive 15" or 17" LCD to bundle with the new Intel Mac mini?

[steve_hill4]

Because we're talking about an architecture change over five different product lines. These things take time, can you really expect Apple to release new Intel iBooks, PowerBooks, minis, iMacs and PowerMacs all at once? That's just crazy.
And yet again, the eMac gets overlooked for an upgrade.;)

[Lord Blackadder]

I disagree... w/ an iMac you get a gorgeous display as well; I think they're two pretty different machines and that there are distinct pros and cons for many a customer... plus, you know that some people will still long for a G5. ;)

Not to mention the fact that the G5's in the iMac are faster than a lot of the Pentium M's floating around.

No, the Mac Mini will get a Pentium M but it will be low-cost and thus not a top 'o the line CPU. Kinda like the current Mac Mini.

And yet again, the eMac gets overlooked for an upgrade.;)

That's becasue the eMac is dead AFAIK. Apple killed it.

[jmufellow]

An "early" release of the fist intel macs seems quite plausible because I'm sure that they overestimated when they gave the mid-2006 date just to be safe. They know what they're doing. And you know who THEY are.

[bentoon]

Ahhhhh,
I was all set to buy a Quad - I just got approved for a loan and want to be doing HD Video (which looks like it has been pushed back a few months any how)
but now it seems like it may not have a shelf life for more than a year
Hmmm

[Stella]

I don't understand why they cannot go ahead and do the transition instead of dragging it out. They've already confirmed that OS X will work on Intel. They've confirmed that all the software out right now will run on Intel with Rosetta.

Who cares if the developers are ready?

Not all software will work with Rosetta, and those that do may have varying degrees of success. Rosetta does not support Altivec - so performance of these applications will be less than otherwise - it would be like a G3 running software optimised for Altivec enabled processors ( i.e., G4 and onwards ).

Rosetta does not also work with Preference Panes at all...

However all Apple consumer products will most likely be ported to Intel by the time the first Intel Mac is available.

[liketom]

And yet again, the eMac gets overlooked for an upgrade.;)
i think Apple mothballed the eMac

[Modano]

January, eh? I hope my Quad order ships before then.
;)

[liketom]

Ahhhhh,
I was all set to buy a Quad - I just got approved for a loan and want to be doing HD Video (which looks like it has been pushed back a few months any how)
but now it seems like it may not have a shelf life for more than a year
Hmmm
you are kidding right ? that quad will be a powerhorse even into 2007:cool:

[duklaprague]

Is it the all singing all dancing intel inside mac mini media centre?

Iain

[Stella]

Hope this rumour is true, the Mac Mini is OK - but its graphics card lets it down. Hope that Apple include a decent graphics ( though I doubt it ).

I'm pretty sure that any Intel based Mac Mini will exceed the performance of the current Mac Mini.


That's becasue the eMac is dead AFAIK. Apple killed
it.

eMacs aren't dead, only available for educational purchases.

[paulypants]

Maybe a new machine to fill the gap created by the lack of the eMac...

[paulypants]

Hope this rumour is true, the Mac Mini is OK - but its graphics card lets it down. Hope that Apple include a decent graphics ( though I doubt it ).


I'd be afraid of the dreaded 'Intel integrated graphics' *shudder*

[hyperpasta]

Considering Apple's MO is to "release" something and then actually, you know, HAVE the items available to ship two to three months later (COUGH G5 PowerMac, 17" PowerBook, others, COUGH) I'd say this is feasable.

Good point. A Yonah Mac mini/Powerbook could schip in March (considering its a week buying period anywa). Then an iBook could come along in March and ship in April. By WWDC, the only ones remaining will be the eMac, the iMac, and the PowerMac, which can all come out over the next year.

Speaking of the eMac (while off-topic), it will have to go Intel at some point or be replaced by a really cheap iMac with a screen protector. I think the latter will happen (a $699 iMac for Education: 17", screen protector, Combo Drive, 80 Gigs, etc.) Not impossible because by then I think screens will be cheap enough for a 23" iMac to appear.

[liketom]

I'd be afraid of the dreaded 'Intel integrated graphics' *shudder*

But it will bring the whole cost down and thats what the Mac Mini is all about


remeber what steve said ! no excuse not to buy a Mac now?

/;)

[aswitcher]

It would be excellent to start 2006 off with the first of the intel macs, in a new mac mini, to allow developers etc to all get their software ported properly to the new chips before the powerlines come out.

[Mojo The Monkey]

I don't understand why they cannot go ahead and do the transition instead of dragging it out. They've already confirmed that OS X will work on Intel. They've confirmed that all the software out right now will run on Intel with Rosetta.

Who cares if the developers are ready?

Any applications that require the use of a G4 or a G5 processor will not run under Rosetta. Rosetta is a G3 emulator.

This means important apps like Final Cut, Motion, Soundtrack, DVD Studio, Aperture, Illustrator, and Doom will not run on intel Macs until they have been updated.

[JCT]

I think the Mini makes perfect sense as a machine for folks to get their feet wet with the Intel-Mac transition. The Pentium M is an excellent chip that is well-matched to the intended role of the Mini. And I entirely agree with the guy above who commented on the iLife Apps --- I'll bet they are ready to go.

It may be a nice transition machine, *if* they can keep the price in the lower registers then I can even imagine existing PPC Mac owners investing in one to try out the Intel side ---I know Iwould consider doing so. I'd love to convert my lab over to Mac and the Mini would make perfect sense for us (everyone already has keyboards, mice and monitors) ---but I find it underpowered in it's present form. If the Intel-Mini is a more "robust" machine then it will fit my needs perfectly.

My update from SoftRAID today prominently mentioned that they are making significant progress on the Intel front...hmmmmmm.

JT

Waiting (not patiently) for her Quad...

[SiliconAddict]

Put a good GPU in that thing and I will pick it up the day it goes on sale. :D

[Lord Blackadder]

eMacs aren't dead, only available for educational purchases.

Really? I wasn't able to find any at the Edu Store on Apple's website. I thought they were gone.

I'd be afraid of the dreaded 'Intel integrated graphics' *shudder*

I hope they decide to use an embedded GPU from ATI or nVidia.

[hyperpasta]

Really? OI cwasn't able to find any at the Edu Store on Apple's website. I thought they were gone.

Only for institutions, not for consumers.

[kwajo.com]

Bingo! Give this man a prize.

a prize?! SWEET :D

and I'm happy about this news if it's true, i'll probably be in the market for a secondary machine to supplement my G5 around the spring next year, and this would be a great way to step into intel macs without breaking the bank on a Rev A machine

[Chupa Chupa]

I'd be afraid of the dreaded 'Intel integrated graphics' *shudder*


It won't be. It's not Core Image/Video compliant. It doesn't make sense that the mini isn't Core compliant now, but it surely will annoy if the MacTel version continues to be crippled.

[Bonte]

i'l buy a PPC iMac next week and later on a intel Mini for home entertainment on the TV. :)

The developers need to support both architectures for a long time, changing in 1 go would tempt them to develop only for mactel. All future mac software has to support both architectures imho, maybe IBM has a nice surprise in a few years, maybe osX will run on PCC consoles, home-electronics are mostly PPC, ...

PPC is not dead at all. :mad:

[zhemgang]

The issue for me is not when Apple's new Intel-based hardware is available, but rather when will the apps be ready for it. I don't think Apple will release anything until some of the major applications are ready or nearly so, such as Photoshop, Elements and Word.

[Mr.Hey]

Here's the little circle: Rumor sites report a RUMOR> Mainstream news sites pick up on the stench and report it as some kind of weird fact> Rumor sites report on the reporting thinking it confirms their original reported RUMOR, who's source is some guy looking at the shape of the boxes in a warehouse in Asia.

Rumor sites need to be put out of their misery. You're starting to ****** with Apple's money. Any moment now, Apple will break down your door and come after you with a blade yelling "Your ********** with my money b**ch, I'm gona cut you!"

[SiliconAddict]

If they do this the Mac Mini will be WAY faster then the iMac G5. No one would buy an iMac after January.


I'm probably one of the biggest Pentium M evangelists on the site but even I know that is pure BS.

[Hattig]

The Mac Mini will be the first Intel Mac I'm sure.

I just wonder how Apple will configure it.

Will it be a Dothan processor? If so, will it be coupled with Intel's integrated graphics? Being a consumer system I fear it will be so. Let's hope that it will be Intel's most up-to-date integrated graphics therefore.

I'm more inclined to believe that Apple will go with a bottom-of-the-line dual-core Yonah (which costs around $30 more than the bottom-of-the-line single-core Yonah, which is the only SC Yonah. Not least because it'll be around for a year or so from that date, whereas Dothan will be phased out over the year. That would make the Mac Mini a really interesting system and I'd buy one. I don't think you'll get a cheaper Mac Mini this way however. I bet Apple pays less than $50 per G4 right now (for <1.5GHz G4s) - Intel would have to give some killer discounts on the >$240 Yonah processor.

So I expect, in January or February 2006:

Dual-core 1.66GHz Yonah (X20) OR Dual-core 1.5GHz Yonah (X38)
Intel chipset with integrated graphics
512MB 533MHz DDR2 RAM, upgradable to 2GB (single slot)
$100 more than current Mac Mini.

[Photorun]

i think it makes sense to start with the mini. think about it, most people using the mini are going to be using iLife and those sort of bundled apps, which of course will be Intel ready right at the shipping date. it's a lot harder to introduce a pro machine early and expect all the business critical apps that professionals use to be ready bug-free right off the bat

Bingo, as the poster said above. And iLife is already optimized for Intel, as is most all the consumer apps, as is OS X. People buying a Mini would probably see an increase in the speed of these apps over the current ones, potentially appreciable but that'd be speculation as there is a LOT of stuff thats goes on between an app, a processor, the busses, etc.

And whomever thinks they're going to use the Centrino chip is completely delusional. They're so bad even most peecee makers are trying to distance themselves from it, machines built with it in often aren't mentioned excpet the fine print. Even Apple, for all their cheapness sometimes (need I mention video cards like someone did above), wouldn't be THAT cheap! I've watched people run a bake-off where the original PIII from 98 dusted a new Centrino and supposedly the Centrino is based on the PIII. Apple is going to be using the M chips (and beyond), and developers are being told to code to that, not Centrino. Pay attention before you post.

[liketom]

Here's the little circle: Rumor sites report a RUMOR> Mainstream news sites pick up on the stench and report it as some kind of weird fact> Rumor sites report on the reporting thinking it confirms their original reported RUMOR, who's source is some guy looking at the shape of the boxes in a warehouse in Asia.

Rumor sites need to be put out of their misery. You're starting to ****** with Apple's money. Any moment now, Apple will break down your door and come after you with a blade yelling "Your ********** with my money b**ch, I'm gona cut you!"
tell us what you really think:D

i think you might have something there

[SiliconAddict]

I'd be afraid of the dreaded 'Intel integrated graphics' *shudder*


Don't be. There won't be any Intel GPU in the thing. Count on it. Apple is fanatical about not having integrated cheap'o graphics in the thing. At worst I expect the thing to be running a mobile 9600 with 64MB of VRAM.

[bigandy]

oh good good. i'll buy a 2nd gen mini if it's intel, just because i want a little box like that but don't want to get the mini now because it's 1st revision is getting old... MWSF Jan 06 seems logical to announce (at least) the new Mini.

[miloblithe]

So I expect, in January or February 2006:

Dual-core 1.66GHz Yonah (X20) OR Dual-core 1.5GHz Yonah (X38)
Intel chipset with integrated graphics
512MB 533MHz DDR2 RAM, upgradable to 2GB (single slot)
$100 more than current Mac Mini.

Why $100 more? I think Apple's pretty happy with their price points.

[miloblithe]

Don't be. There won't be any Intel GPU in the thing. Count on it. Apple is fanatical about not having integrated cheap'o graphics in the thing. At worst I expect the thing to be running a mobile 9600 with 64MB of VRAM.

Well, Apple used to be fanatical about having PowerPC chips too. I think everything's up in the air.

[mdavey]

I would expect maybe a powermac intel to come out first, but oh well I won't copmplain!

Why? The Mac mini is the simplest product from an engineering standpoint, so it makes sense to work on an Intel version of that first - less risk. I wonder whether it will actually be in Mac mini form factor or have a different form-factor and name but essentially the same spec. (except processor and IR receiver).

[SiliconAddict]

And whomever thinks they're going to use the Centrino chip is completely delusional. They're so bad even most peecee makers are trying to distance themselves from it, machines built with it in often aren't mentioned excpet the fine print. Even Apple, for all their cheapness sometimes (need I mention video cards like someone did above), wouldn't be THAT cheap! I've watched people run a bake-off where the original PIII from 98 dusted a new Centrino and supposedly the Centrino is based on the PIII. Apple is going to be using the M chips (and beyond), and developers are being told to code to that, not Centrino. Pay attention before you post.

Ummm you are wrong. Way wrong....insanly wrong. So wrong it hurts. I mean....*shakes head* I'll wayt for someone else to come out and tell you exactly why you are wrong. The Pentium M....(There is no god damn Centrino chip!! Sorry but if you are going to rant on something get the name right!! Please!)...rocks in most apps. The only ones they lag behind at are the more intensive content creation items like ripping a DVD or encoding a movie into DIVX. Even then current benchmarks show they aren't THAT bad. I think you need to go back and look at your facts....Maybe you are thinking about the Celeron or somthing? :confused:

[liketom]

Why? The Mac mini is the simplest product from an engineering standpoint, so it makes sense to work on an Intel version of that first - less risk. I wonder whether it will actually be in Mac mini form factor or have a different form-factor and name but essentially the same spec. (except processor and IR receiver).

exactly, look what they did with the iPod Mini ... redesigned it to the iPod Nano -

Mac Mini could be re done altogether
:o

[SiliconAddict]

Well, Apple used to be fanatical about having PowerPC chips too. I think everything's up in the air.


No Apple is fanatical about the experience they give their users which is part of the reason why they are going x86. (Note: part.) Apple isn't going to use a craptastic GPU that is going to be on par with a large portion of the PC's on the market.

[SiliconAddict]

exactly, look what they did with the iPod Mini ... redesigned it to the iPod Nano -

Mac Mini could be re done altogether
:o


Introducing the Mac Waffle.....so thin you just want to eat it.

[toneloco2881]

Bingo, as the poster said above. And iLife is already optimized for Intel, as is most all the consumer apps, as is OS X. People buying a Mini would probably see an increase in the speed of these apps over the current ones, potentially appreciable but that'd be speculation as there is a LOT of stuff thats goes on between an app, a processor, the busses, etc.

And whomever thinks they're going to use the Centrino chip is completely delusional. They're so bad even most peecee makers are trying to distance themselves from it, machines built with it in often aren't mentioned excpet the fine print. Even Apple, for all their cheapness sometimes (need I mention video cards like someone did above), wouldn't be THAT cheap! I've watched people run a bake-off where the original PIII from 98 dusted a new Centrino and supposedly the Centrino is based on the PIII. Apple is going to be using the M chips (and beyond), and developers are being told to code to that, not Centrino. Pay attention before you post.

What are you talking about.:rolleyes: Centrino is not a chip, but rather an aggregation of cpu, chipset, and networking interfaces. It's just intel's marketing name which manufacturers can use provided they adhere to certain hardware requirements. All "centrino" notebooks to this point have included some variant of the pentium m processsor, but not all notebooks with a pentium m are centrino based...Make sense?:confused: ....Now I'm confused.

Lets hope that Apple chooses to use intel's centrino platform, which theoretically speaking, should bring cost down for the whole computer, since they wont have to design their own hardware. Let intel do the work, and then just slap it in! Oh yeah, powerbook is most definitely going intel at MWSF. There's no way the mac mini will get intel before the pbook. All the people talking about pro software aren't getting it. If you "need" photoshop then perhaps you'll stay with a ppc notebook. Although from what I hear, Rosetta is damn fast, so it may be a moot point. The majority of other PRO apps that utilize Altivec, are Apple's apps to begin with so you can rest assured they will be ready day one. The powerbook needed intel yesterday!

[Pepper2001]

A second-generation all-new Intel Mac mini with Front Row (slighty different design) at MWFS would generate a lot of hype. Maybe even with a 30-day Test Drive plan (cough). Maybe even an ad campaign! It would be a huge swithcer magnet.

On the other hand, it would make the iBook and Powerbook look kind of weak. My guess is a Mac mini with Front Row and a Powerbook with iSight, both with Intel. The iBook will come later without the iSight and with Mac mini clock speeds/graphics.

If you start adding too much stuff to the Mini the price will have to increase and it won't look as attractive to a switcher like myself. iSight is $190 CDN I think. That would bump the price of a base mac mini to $810 CDN. A little too high when you see Dell ads for that price including a monitor, etc, etc. Don't get me wrong, I love my new Mac, but to Joe User who is looking at switching, that price tag might frighten them off a little bit.

[stevep]

Why? The Mac mini is the simplest product from an engineering standpoint, so it makes sense to work on an Intel version of that first - less risk. I wonder whether it will actually be in Mac mini form factor or have a different form-factor and name but essentially the same spec. (except processor and IR receiver).
The Mini is a complex and cleverly engineered little computer, far from simple. The same applies to the laptops. The simplest machines from an engineering and production standpoint are the powermacs - plenty of room inside for different form-factor motherboards, cooling fans, 3rd party expansion cards etc. The only disadvantage of making the PowerMac the first IntelMac is that its used by all the professionals, and it is so much more important to get it right for this market.

[liketom]

Introducing the Mac Waffle.....so thin you just want to eat it.
well Apple wants a big show of it if the Mac Mini is to be the first to go Intel in Jan 06 - so what better way then to redesign it from the ground up ?

Mac Waffle sounds tasty :D

[Lynxpro]

A second-generation all-new Intel Mac mini with Front Row (slighty different design) at MWFS would generate a lot of hype. Maybe even with a 30-day Test Drive plan (cough). Maybe even an ad campaign! It would be a huge swithcer magnet.
On the other hand, it would make the iBook and Powerbook look kind of weak. My guess is a Mac mini with Front Row and a Powerbook with iSight, both with Intel. The iBook will come later without the iSight and with Mac mini clock speeds/graphics.


I really think Apple should bite the bullet and bring out PowerBooks with Intel processors as fast as possible and supplement them with an existing G4 chip so that applications like PhotoShop and FCP won't suffer performance-wise since neither have been recompiled for use on x86 OS X.

Or maybe offer a G4 chip "upgrade" (?) option via the PC Card slot. Heck, that might even be a way to finally have a G5 powered (supplemental) PowerBook as well. Granted, going through the PC Card route would have latency issues for either processor.

And before anyone disses my idea, just remember that in the late 80s/early 90s, not only Apple, but Commodore and Atari all offered options (in some models) for an 8086/286 co-processor chip to use in emulation mode for DOS applications while the Motorola 680x0 processor stuck with the native apps and OS. And yes, I realize my suggestion for the PowerBook would cause power issues when the extra chip was in use but that would not matter if the owner was using the machine at their desk.

[Hattig]

Why $100 more? I think Apple's pretty happy with their price points.

If a G4 for the Mac Mini costs $50, and a Yonah costs $240...

and Intel give Apple a $100 discount on the Yonah, making it $140 for Apple, as long as they use an Intel chipset.

Then Apple have a $90 higher bill of material. However by using integrated graphics in the chipset they might save, say, $20 on the low-end graphics chip. Maybe it cost Apple a lot to create their chipsets, so buying a chipset from Intel for $40 is another $20 cheaper overall than using their own.

So far we're $50 above the previous cost. That translates to roughly $100 of cost to the consumer.

Maybe by factoring in things like: 512MB memory then will be cheaper than 512MB now. Superdrive will be cheaper. Hard drive will be cheaper. Integration and refinement will result in cheaper system. Case is already designed, therefore less design cost... maybe that'll come out to the other $50 cost to Apple, and thus they'll keep the same price point or swallow the few dollars more it'll cost.

Of course, because the original numbers were pulled out of the air, you can create you own scenario for Mac Mini costs when they're on Intel. Sadly Dothan based Mac Mini rip-offs are currently costing $200+ more than the Mac Mini itself.

And now ... come January 2006: "New Mac Mini! 1.7GHz G4 with 512MB DDR2 RAM, using 7448..." :P :O :D

(gotta use Intrepid 2 somewhere!)

[Lynxpro]

With Rosetta all of your old software will run just fine. I basically see no downside to starting with the mini as it gives an impetus to developers to get going and most mini buyers aren't power users and probably won't even notice the slight slowdown while using Rosetta.

With the exception of the pro Apps like Photoshop, FCP, etc. Who knows what Quark would run like either...

[Lynxpro]

Theres a massive gap performance wise between the mini and the iMac now... the mini needs a big performance boost, maybe going intel will provide that.


Not to mention that the Mac Mini needs a G5 or a PentiumM to successfully encode/decode HDTV for those interested in using the system as a modern living room multimedia engine.

Well, those microprocessors and a more powerful GPU...

[adamfilip]

What im wondering is will apple give you the option to bundle windows with it?

think a $200 option for XP pro, preinstalled to dual boot

[MacSlut]

This makes a lot of sense. I could easily see Apple releasing the Intel based mini at MacWorld in Jan. I know if they were to add s-video out and Front Row (with IR) they would sell a ton...as well as more AirPorts....hmmm...Mac mini as an AirPort Express AV?

Most mini users are not heavy PhotoShoppers which is the one major app that won't run well on an Intel Mac for quite some time. Most mini users would be fine with Rosetta.

Also, being the lowest cost Mac ever *and* Intel based, this would be a really great box to get out there for the non-registered developers.

[m-dogg]

Hmmm, maybe the G4 will be officially retired at MWSF, and they'll move the mini, ibook and powerbook all to intel chips. Sounds good to me! :p

[Macmaniac]

The last line of Macs to get Intel chips will be the Powermacs! The Powermac is holding up fine in terms of performance, and it may even see another PPC update before the Intel switch.

Read my lips the Powermac will be the last to cross over!

[oskar]

Besides, why just the mac mini? If Apple's going to change something as major as their architecture, wouldn't it make more sense to release an entire lineup all at once? I realize that they'll have to start somewhere, but the mac mini's just a small portion of their market.

Because OS X practically has every app you would use on a Mac Mini. If they included (or at least offered) a finished new version of iWork to go with every Mac mini, it is more than likely that Apple would make this choice.

Apple must be working very hard to get their pro apps working on Intel, but until then the average consumer market are the first ones who won't have to use "emulated" (slower) apps.
For the Pro we still have a just-released Quad G5 which I believe is not even shipping yet. That should last us for a while.

[darh]

The last line of Macs to get Intel chips will be the Powermacs! The Powermac is holding up fine in terms of performance, and it may even see another PPC update before the Intel switch.

Read my lips the Powermac will be the last to cross over!


what do you think about the xServe ? ;)

[Dont Hurt Me]

I think its some spin, When Apple goes Intel they will do it in a big way. I doubt they just throw a Intel into a Mini or book. Im sure there will be all New cool looking and performing models. This is Apple we are talking, not maytag or kenmore etc. I expect something different. Perhaps a new Cube like desktop or Mini on steroids and a all new book with real power. Thats my bet. A machine that can run Windows and Mac:)

[mdavey]

Introducing the Mac Waffle.....so thin you just want to eat it.

I think you are getting confused - although the packaging (http://www.xinet.com/images/industry.images/image.advertising.ind.jpg) is similar (http://www.ajr.jp/zen/archives/050112/box-thumb.jpg) ;)

[Peace]

The last line of Macs to get Intel chips will be the Powermacs! The Powermac is holding up fine in terms of performance, and it may even see another PPC update before the Intel switch.

Read my lips the Powermac will be the last to cross over!

Considering Jobs said the Powermacs would be last to cross over I wouldn't say that is a bold assertion..

The Powerbook otoh..

The current 1.67 uses a 167MHz FSB..

Check out Intel's roadmap that starts in January

http://www.intel.com/products/roadmap/laptop.htm

We could see Intel powerbooks in January.

[hyperpasta]

If you start adding too much stuff to the Mini the price will have to increase and it won't look as attractive to a switcher like myself. iSight is $190 CDN I think. That would bump the price of a base mac mini to $810 CDN. A little too high when you see Dell ads for that price including a monitor, etc, etc. Don't get me wrong, I love my new Mac, but to Joe User who is looking at switching, that price tag might frighten them off a little bit.

fyi, I was talking About the Powerbook. Front Row probably costs next to nothing to add.

[Mr. Anderson]

If they went too early (January) and didn't have more than just the Mini, the sales of all the old G5 and G4 machines would tank. They have to be ready to get them all out the door asap. I'll be very surprised to see that happen in January....

D

[MacsRgr8]

Pentium M or not.... Radeon X600 or not...

I just hope this little MacIntel Mini is fast enough to play HD movies on a TV...

I bet many will use this mini as some kind of media device, especially once Front Row will be pre-installed ;)

[Stella]

Probably, which is unfortunate.

This will be the result of misinformation due to people thinking:

"As soon as the first Intel Mac is released, Apple and 3rd Parties will discontinue complete support for PPC processors thus rendering the millions of PPC Macs useless".

Some people on this site really believe this is the case ; they should really know better. Further, some believe that Leopard will be for Intel only ( from posts I've seen )...

Fortunately, this couldn't be further from the truth. Apple should make this clearer - support for PPC will continue for years to come.


If they went too early (January) and didn't have more than just the Mini, the sales of all the old G5 and G4 machines would tank. They have to be ready to get them all out the door asap. I'll be very surprised to see that happen in January....

D

[Mr. Anderson]

Pentium M or not.... Radeon X600 or not...

I just hope this little MacIntel Mini is fast enough to play HD movies on a TV...

I bet many will use this mini as some kind of media device, especially once Front Row will be pre-installed ;)

That would be nice - I'm planning on getting one of the minis and putting it in the kitchen and hooking it up to a 17" or 19" LCD TV/Monitor - that way I can use it for the internet or watch TV. And having wireless mouse and keyboard will be great. I'm just a little concerned about where to mount the thing, but I'll take care of that when I buy it.

I don't need it on the countertop getting wet....

D

[Lynxpro]

From what I've read on Dev Kit related sites the transition is going quit well.There are many apps that have been ported to the OSX86 without using rosetta.
I even read somewhere that Firefox runs faster through rosetta on the X86 than it does natively on the PPC.


It wouldn't take much. To me, FireFox runs like a dog on OS X. It practically locks up my parents 1 ghz eMac which has 768 megs of memory on it. FireFox sprinted in comparison on my old AthlonXP (1600?) with only 512 megs of memory.

[solomania9]

One thing is for sure: the first Intel Mac cannot be perceived as slow. All eyes are on this machine and Apple is betting its future (except for its iPod division...) on the Intel platform. I think they'd rather lose a little profit in the short term by using better CPUs and GPUs than making their Intel debut on an underperforming machine. My $.02.

[shompa]

I think it's to early in Jan.
The simle reason is the processor.

They need to cram a Pentium-M inside the MacMini.
This processor is an expensive processor. Take a 1.7ghz Pentium M. Just the price for that processor is 200 dollars for OEM. I don't think that Apple will get bigger discounts than Dell.

[Peace]

One thing is for sure: the first Intel Mac cannot be perceived as slow. All eyes are on this machine and Apple is betting its future (except for its iPod division...) on the Intel platform. I think they'd rather lose a little profit in the short term by using better CPUs and GPUs than making their Intel debut on an underperforming machine. My $.02.

Bingo!

I really believe Apple is gonna release this minibeast at a loss knowing the rest of the Mac lines will sell well enough to cover the loss until they get the footprint down pat.

[Damek]

I would hope Apple would make the mini switch to Intel first - not that I'd buy one. But it makes it incredibly easy (cheap) for early adopters to check out the new Intel macs & in so doing create the demand necessary for developers to feel even mor motivated to make Intel-mac versions of their software.

At the same time, non-early-adopters, people just looking to buy the cheapest Mac, are unlikely to need much beyond the installed software, so they won't be hurt too much by the initial lack of Intel-mac compatible software.

6 months to a year down the line, things will be much better for people like me looking to buy Intel iMacs or PowerMacs...

[Frobozz]

Forbes throws in a healthy dose of speculation with their facts. They do a good job of being honest about it, but really they are just taking guesses beyond "something Intel at MWSF."

Frankly, I don't see any desktop system going to Intel prior to the laptop lines. The PowerBook will be first and the iBook second. The Mac mini third, with the iMac fourth, the PowerMac 5th, and the xServe 6th.

[ktlx]

Apple is going to be using the M chips (and beyond), and developers are being told to code to that, not Centrino. Pay attention before you post.

Your rant wouldn't sound as stupid if you knew what you were talking about. The Pentium M is the CPU used in Centrino laptops.

Assuming you are able to read, here is a URL: http://www.intel.com/products/centrino/index.htm

[mister_L]

It won't be. It's not Core Image/Video compliant. It doesn't make sense that the mini isn't Core compliant now, but it surely will annoy if the MacTel version continues to be crippled.

no, you´re wrong. i just tested the "modified" OSX86 version on an intel celereon with intelchipset and intel gpu (gm900) (yah...i know...but it was only for a short comparism to my powerbook...and it wasn´t even my computer and i deinstalled it instantly;)). it runs fine...and the gpu supports core graphics - it´s even faster than my powerbook (e.g. smoother widgets-water-effects).

[amac4me]

I have reason to believe that a release of an Intel based Mac mini at Macworld 2006 is possible. It would be a great headline story to jump start Macworld as it would demonstrate to the market that Apple has the ability to make the transition.

This will be done for a number of reasons: Leopard, Sales, Microsoft. An Intel based system, even if it's a Mac mini, out well in advance of Leopard will:


Increase the test base as Apple would get more feedback from users on any problems faced on the new platform. This would give Apple plenty of lead time to resolve these issues prior to the release of Leopard
Get the ball rolling from a developer perspective as Apple would have a "non-development" environment to test applications
Kick off a new wave of buying from potential Windows switchers as consumers wouldn't be restricted from running Windows on the mini
Generate momentum and fuel the interest for the next wave of the Mac upgrade cycle. Many current Mac owners have indicated a willingness to hold off on upgrading their systems until the Intel based Macs are released. The success of an Intel based Mac mini could drive those current Mac owners to purchase the intial round of Intel based iMac, iBook, Powerbook, and Powermac systems instead of opting for second generation systems
Get another leg up on Microsoft

[Frobozz]

With the exception of the pro Apps like Photoshop, FCP, etc. Who knows what Quark would run like either...

I'd venture that people who buy and use Quark in this day and age aren't the types to go rushing out to buy new Hardware.

As for Photoshop and Illustrator (up to an including CS2), they can run on a G3 processor. Granted, they won't have the speed of AltiVec (G4 and G5), but it'll run.

http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/systemreqs.html

[Frobozz]

Your rant wouldn't sound as stupid if you knew what you were talking about. The Pentium M is the CPU used in Centrino laptops.

Assuming you are able to read, here is a URL: http://www.intel.com/products/centrino/index.htm

Ba-ziiiing!

Ouch.

I think, if anything, this proves that the Centrino / Intel marketing scheme is something Apple will abstract. It isn't clear to most people.

[susannahyork]

the computer that I would like to see apple make is one with the power of an imac but without the built-in screen, and is potentially upgradeable. at the consumer level there should be a computer that has power (more than the Mini) but does not require you to purchase a new screen every time you want to upgrade (it seems like a waste to constantly buy a new screen (imac)). I understand that this might kill the sales of the mini, but I would love to run a computer with the power of an imac, on one of apples cinema displays. am I crazy?

[hyperpasta]

Imagine this. Apple announces new Powerbooks and Mac minis at Macworld: To ship as soon as possible.

The Developer community, in unison, goes "HOLY S***!!!!!" and works as fast as it can to get its apps native.

3 months later, the macs actually ship with a healthy library of supported titles. :rolleyes:

Then the iBook comes out, and the education maret doesn't feel nervous about performance.

[bbyrdhouse]

... I would expect maybe a powermac intel to come out first, but oh well I won't copmplain!
Then again! Maybe Mac minis should be first. I would buy one.

The Powermacs absolutely will not come out first. They will start with the inexpensive Macmini and Ibook, BUT bacause the Powerbooks have been long overdue for a makeover they will probably be in the mix early on in '06.

But not the POwermacs. The new Quad machines are going to be faster than anything in their price range. It probably wont be until '07 before we see any Intel PM's

[ibook30]

When I first started reading this thread, I was confused why Apple would put their latest and greatest into their least expensive model ...

I'm still a little uncertain if the explanations offered are accurate- but some of the sensible ideas I read are:
*wider base of new users
*average mac mini user will not need pro apps ready to go
*price point may attract switchers

So it sounds like a safety issue. Apple doesn't want to take a chance by offering INTEL in their premium lines. A little insecurity there,, (but it is a big change.. )

[Thanatoast]

the computer that I would like to see apple make is one with the power of an imac but without the built-in screen, and is potentially upgradeable. at the consumer level there should be a computer that has power (more than the Mini) but does not require you to purchase a new screen every time you want to upgrade (it seems like a waste to constantly buy a new screen (imac)). I understand that this might kill the sales of the mini, but I would love to run a computer with the power of an imac, on one of apples cinema displays. am I crazy?
Um, base-level powermac?

And no, you're not crazy, it's just that Apple hasn't built their business model that way. They have the mini, for those who are looking for an email machine. The iMac, for those who want a reasonably powerful, beautiful, integrated, never-have-to-screw-with-the-innards computer. And the Power Macs, for the power users.

[balamw]

supposedly the Centrino is based on the PIII. Apple is going to be using the M chips (and beyond), and developers are being told to code to that, not Centrino.
The Pentium M is the CPU used in Centrino laptops.
And to top it off the Pentium M (and beyond) are all based on a step back to the Pentium III , which is partly why they outperform the Penitum 4s.

Centrino = (Pentium-M CPU + Chipset + Wireless) all designed for low power consumption (even though I have yet to see a Centrino notebook that has 5 hours battery life surfing the web over wireless like my iBook!). If Apple actually uses the Centrino platform for the new mini it'll be to keep the heat down since there is no battery to worry about.

Maybe this explains why the 1.5 GHz (late 2005) minis have not been formally announced. They are about to be EOLed in a couple of months.

Maybe they'll just release the Intel minis without a formal annoucement either, and at MWSF they'll just announce. We've been shipping Intel based minis for a month now, and nobody noticed. ;) :rolleyes:

B

[j_maddison]

Someone needs to cut down on their caffeine intake and get out a little more :p

Here's the little circle: Rumor sites report a RUMOR> Mainstream news sites pick up on the stench and report it as some kind of weird fact> Rumor sites report on the reporting thinking it confirms their original reported RUMOR, who's source is some guy looking at the shape of the boxes in a warehouse in Asia.

Rumor sites need to be put out of their misery. You're starting to ****** with Apple's money. Any moment now, Apple will break down your door and come after you with a blade yelling "Your ********** with my money b**ch, I'm gona cut you!"

[VanMac]

As many have said, I think going with the mini first is a good idea. It's not a 'pro' tool, and a little more freedom to play around with things as oppossed to a laptop. I wont be buying one, as I'm not in the market for such a device, but a good stepping stone nonetheless.

[BenRoethig]

It won't be. It's not Core Image/Video compliant. It doesn't make sense that the mini isn't Core compliant now, but it surely will annoy if the MacTel version continues to be crippled.

The developer machines are fully core image/ video compliant and they're running GMA900 with a DVI adaptor card.

[lazyrighteye]

It may have been said earlier, but releasing an Intel-based Mini at MWSF '06 is smart... for several reasons.

AUDIENCE
Generally speaking, the target market for the Mini has primarily been (and will continue to be) the casual user: one who gets online, listens to music, maybe watches a DVD. These are all either iApps or system-based apps - all of which will (and are) run(ning) fine on Intel chips. For those apps that aren't there yet, Rosetta will act as this transition's "Classic" (users seem quick to forget that when OS X first hit, there were zero apps available, save what Apple bundled - now know as the iApps - and we all adjusted just fine). The typical Mini user will very much more-than-likely not ever have a need for any of this Rosetta business.

PUBLIC RELATIONS
It would be nice if Apple could deliver an Intel-based "anything" ahead of their mid '06 prediction... if even on a psychological level. I personally hope they very intentionally said "mid '06" with the knowledge that they would actually begin releasing Intel-based product(s) earlier. With past false promises and missed opportunities, it would bode well for Apple to come in ahead of schedule, for once. Help the current and potential user base feel more confident with an Apple/Intel relationship.

INTEL MINIS TODAY = BETTER INTEL POWERMACS TOMORROW*
The sooner we have Intel-based Macs in the market, the sooner the power users' gear will go to market... and/or the better it will run. I see an Intel-based Mini as a public testing ground. The people reading this thread are, for the most part, not the typical Mini user and will probably be happy to let the Mini debut the Intel inside, as opposed to the Powermacs.

MONEY
No matter what people say, there will always be early adopters just itching to give Apple their money. The Mini audience seems the most logical, for reasons listed above and because (for the most part) they could care less what processor is powering their Mini. And if Apple could make some money off these users, while testing the waters... win win.

TIMING
Releasing this Mini early is also nice because it starts the transition now, as opposed to potentially having a more massive, product-wide announcement in mid '06. Seems more wise to water down the Intel thing over a longer roll out process... hopefully building momentum along the way.

While there are several other reasons, these seemed the most pertinent... to me.


* does not, for one second, suggest we open the seemingly unavoidable "Intel-based Powerbooks Tomorrow" thread. ;)

[hpzine]

I hope this is true I really need to replace my old PC its barly running as it is now.....

[hvfsl]

Well I checked and all my apps (except Final Cut) work with Rosetta (because they support the G3). I just hope that A) Apple releases a patch so Final Cut works on Rosseta (maybe by disabling the Altivec extensions) or B) release an x86 version when they release the new PowerBooks.

I wouldn't mind paying for the upgrade because of how much faster FC will be on the new Intel Powerbook compared to my PB G4.

[zap2]

WoW

i think i'd buy a PPC iBook to last through the PPC-x86

[zap2]

Congrats Jobs, your incompetence is turning Apple into Dell on the Intel processor roadmap trainwreck.

Ok when you Mac is just a fast you wont care, intel might not be that bad. G4 is an old chip, it not a good chip Apple PB are not up to par with apple desktops

[Hunts121]

It wouldn't take much. To me, FireFox runs like a dog on OS X. It practically locks up my parents 1 ghz eMac which has 768 megs of memory on it. FireFox sprinted in comparison on my old AthlonXP (1600?) with only 512 megs of memory.

agreed, my powerbook runs both firefox (RC1) and Thunderbird (it seems to take forever and a day for an email window to pop up when I click compose message)rather slow, my PC (also listed in my signature) runs rings around it running both apps. Though when I use Safari and Mail 2.0 the gap is nonexistent (expectedly), in fact then my mac outpaces them by far (mac and pc versions). Why can't Mozilla get closer to THAT kind of response??

[j_maddison]

What im wondering is will apple give you the option to bundle windows with it?

think a $200 option for XP pro, preinstalled to dual boot

Personally I think apple would be better off giving the option of an emulation like VPC, but one that is actually snappy and up to the job of using third party hardware more effectively. That way windows users will get used to the OS (osx I mean), and still have the security of Windose.

I think your average user wont have a clue about dual booting, and will end up just booting into windows if apple make their machines dual boot. The next thing you know is that Joe bloggs will think Macs get viruses etc, because they just wont have a clue that that the apple experience is about using osx.

I'm not saying people are thick, I'm just saying that they generally don’t take the time to find out.

A mate of mine who has just graduated Uni told me she’s not on the net at the moment because her laptop is full of viruses. When I asked her did she have a virus scanner, she replied she used to but didn’t think it was any good so she doesn’t use it any more. I think that kind of mentality is widespread amongst people who buy cheap pc hardware.

I think running xp as an emulation has allot of things going for it, not to mention your average Joe will think it’s the coolest looking thing ever!

Jason

[iHavenolife]

It might be good to introduce intel on the low end first, but people will be quick to jump on saying that it was a mistake because the mini will not be able to do major proceses like the power macs, and they will have to wait for the real powerful ones to come out to make an accurate assumption.

[Peace]

What a sick joke.

Have fun idiots. Your platform is self-destructing right from under you.

Congrats Jobs, your incompetence is turning Apple into Dell on the Intel processor roadmap trainwreck.

Sorry if I'm feeding a troll but WHY do people come in here and say stuff like that? I mean jeez...Go get an XPLife..:rolleyes:

[macorama]

I really believe Apple is gonna release this minibeast at a loss knowing the rest of the Mac lines will sell well enough to cover the loss until they get the footprint down pat.

I can't see this happening... the people who buy Mac Minis have already chosen the least powerful Mac available, and the lowest margin product. If the current gradual update cycle on the minis keeps going they'll keep selling regardless of who made the CPU.

Portables on the other hand are totally different. Powerbooks have gone from market leaders to way behind - HD displays on the last update was about 2 years behind dell! The portables have the most to gain from going to Intel, so that's sure to be Apple's priority.

[cemorris]

I for one would love to see it happen sooner rather than later. Rev B Intel Powerbook here I come!

[SuperSnake2012]

All I hope is that Apple doesn't put Intel video cards in the laptops :eek:

[mjstew33]

What a sick joke.

Have fun idiots. Your platform is self-destructing right from under you.

Congrats Jobs, your incompetence is turning Apple into Dell on the Intel processor roadmap trainwreck.
Do I smell a n00b? :rolleyes:

[digitalbiker]

Imagine this. Apple announces new Powerbooks and Mac minis at Macworld: To ship as soon as possible.

The Developer community, in unison, goes "HOLY S***!!!!!" and works as fast as it can to get its apps native.

Scenario 2:

Imagine this. Apple announces new Powerbooks and Mac minis at Macworld: To ship as soon as possible.

The Developer community, in unison, goes "HOLY S***!!!!!" and then "Oh Well SC**W Apple anyway!".

Let the teeny weeny tiny .01 % market share of OS X x86 users go without native versions. If they really want our software they can either run it in Rosetta , reboot into XP and buy XP native versions of our software , or run Wine for OSX and run XP native versions of our software. They'll have to do it for games anyway, so why not pro software.

This OS X to x86 transition is great! Now we only have to develop for Windows x86 native versions of our software and the mac users can use it too. No more creating mac only software. Woohoo!:eek:

[Peace]

Scenario 2:

Imagine this. Apple announces new Powerbooks and Mac minis at Macworld: To ship as soon as possible.

The Developer community, in unison, goes "HOLY S***!!!!!" and then "Oh Well SC**W Apple anyway!".

Let the teeny weeny tiny .01 % market share of OS X x86 users go without native versions. If they really want our software they can either run it in Rosetta , reboot into XP and buy XP native versions of our software , or run Wine for OSX and run XP native versions of our software. They'll have to do it for games anyway, so why not pro software.

This OS X to x86 transition is great! Now we only have to develop for Windows x86 native versions of our software and the mac users can use it too. No more creating mac only software. Woohoo!:eek:

That scenerio will never happen.There's WAY too much interest in OSX on Intel.From both consumer and developer.

[oober_freak]

exactly, look what they did with the iPod Mini ... redesigned it to the iPod Nano -

Mac Mini could be re done altogether
:o

Mac Nano :eek:


On a more serious note, my PPC mac mini is good for me.. I just didn't want to take chances with a first gen mactel especially with the shady Apple support here... If it was HP/Dell, I'd have bought it :P But WTH.. whoz gonna own a PC after owning a Mac!

[berkleeboy210]

PowerBooks should be due for Intel first.... The last "update" wasn't even really an update... Just a few "enhancments" to hold us over until the switch.

We shall see come January.

I'd also love to see Fox, NBC, & CBS to jump on the iTunes Video wagon.

[SiliconAddict]

What a sick joke.

Have fun idiots. Your platform is self-destructing right from under you.

Congrats Jobs, your incompetence is turning Apple into Dell on the Intel processor roadmap trainwreck.



Wow and I thought most people were past stage 2...... Oh well. Some people are just slooooooooower then others.

[SiliconAddict]

Do I smell a n00b? :rolleyes:


Nope it smells like troll spirit. :eek:

[p0intblank]

If this actually happens this early... wow. :eek: Go Apple! If not, then that's okay. I can always wait since I am getting a Power Mac Quad in a couple months. As for starting out with the Mac mini, that's a very smart move. I guess they're making the mini their "public test subject." This will definitely be interesting. Damnit, now I can't wait for MacWorld even more! :p

[DakotaGuy]

If this actually happens this early... wow. :eek: Go Apple! If not, then that's okay. I can always wait since I am getting a Power Mac Quad in a couple months.

It seems to me that whatever happen with the Mini should not effect your plans. I mean even though PPC is old school and everyone wants Intel power because it is supposed to be superior, that Quad should still be faster. One would think anyhow.

[unage85]

I always wanted a Mac mini but in comparison to an iMac G5 an iMac won hands down in terms of value. The G4 in the Mac mini killed it from the begining because when you bought everything else (monitor et al) it became too expensive (well... if you bought Apple only accessories). Now the Mac mini has something extremely different to offer if this rumor is true. A way to test the new Mac-tels at a cheap price :) Only time and my pending credit card application assessment will tell ;)

I only hope when MacWorld comes around (and we all know iLife '06 is coming!!!) they include Front Row and PhotoBooth for everyone else! Also... Book Printing in iPhoto & Aprature would be nice if it could be done in Australia... !

- Den

[p0intblank]

It seems to me that whatever happen with the Mini should not effect your plans. I mean even though PPC is old school and everyone wants Intel power because it is supposed to be superior, that Quad should still be faster. One would think anyhow.

Without a doubt, the Quad will still own the Mac mini when it comes to performance. Oddly, though, I would still love to own a mini... you know, just to have one. This transition to Intel might just make me finally buy one to use as a HTPC.

[Psychic Shopper]

I predict the first mac/intel mini will have a slightly faster Pentium M processor, intel embedded graphics and networking. It will be faster with general applications, but applications that take advantage of Altivec will still run faster on a G4/5. The big new feature will be a lower price.

[AidenShaw]

It seems to me that whatever happen with the Mini should not effect your plans. I mean even though PPC is old school and everyone wants Intel power because it is supposed to be superior, that Quad should still be faster. One would think anyhow.
When the PM goes Intel, quad Xeon is quite possible. (The quad Xeon (or whatever the marketing name for the new generation lower power dual-core server chips are called) will definitely be available - I say "possible" because Apple hasn't hinted about what configurations they'll actually use.)

For the year or so until that happens, however, the quad core PPC970MP should be faster than any of the Yonah/Merom dual-core setups...

[decksnap]

I'd venture that people who buy and use Quark in this day and age aren't the types to go rushing out to buy new Hardware.


Umm, what? These are what you call Pro users. You know, the ones who buy all the new expensive hardware?

Say what you want about Quark (I do!) but it still dominates the industry.

[bolson]

The powerusers are most able to deal with the stuff that can and will go wrong in a major change like this. Change the high end first.

Now, that said, a January intel macmini would be interesting and I might even buy one.

I think a more likely early intel switch would be in the PowerBook which long ago ran up against the wall of what PowerPC chips IBM and Apple can squish into that package. A Pentium M switch might be a quick way to break out of that. And it's for the power users, who buy the high end equipment, who know what they're doing and can deal with any snafu.

And the "Power" in "PowerBook" probably won't go away, since they had that name back in 68000 days with the PowerBook 100. PowerMac might go back to just plain Mac though...

[arkmannj]

Mac Minis will come with Pentium M inside, (hopefully no sticker outside though, or it gets pealed off), but if the PB gets their iSight and other rumoured upgrades in Januray too, I can't wait. Need to get that wireless network set up in time for January, one way or another though.

I used to squirm at the thought of an intel inside sticker,
but I wouldn't care if they put it on the back by the ports or something.
:-p

[Peace]

I used to squirm at the thought of an intel inside sticker,
but I wouldn't care if they put it on the back by the ports or something.
:-p


no...no...no......

[cgc]

Intel Mini is great for lots of reasons. A prime reason would be to have a huge base of "beta-testers" for lack of a better term.

[Stella]

Has Apple confirmed whether OSX Intel will support SSE3 or an earlier version?

[weldon]

My concern with a Pentium M mac mini is that it will underwhelm the press and negatively influence consumers' perceptions of the first Intel-based mac.

Just imagine, a low-end Pentium M based Mac mini is going to be compared against faster celeron or P4 desktops in similar price ranges. The Mac mini is going to look like it has a slow processor for the price. The Pentium M they choose might not be a much faster chip than the current G4 is. Then we have Rosetta slowing it down as well. So it might not be much faster than a previous generation Mac, or it might even be slower :mad:

Can you imagine the press reaction when Apple releases its first intel-based computer and things are SLOWER than the previous generation? People would pile on to say how overpriced Apple is compared to other PC makers that use similar chips.

The only hope I see is that the Mac mini performs at par with the current G4 machine on common tasks and is less expensive. A price drop would help difuse any negative press about the lack of performance gains.

[Stella]

It wouldn't be too difficult to put in a processor that is faster than the current G4 processor found in today's Mac Mini. But this is only the beginning of where performance gains can be found.

I'm pretty confident that an Intel Mac Mini would easily outperform the current PPC Mac Mini. If it doesn't, Apple have done something horribly wrong.


The only hope I see is that the Mac mini performs at par with the current G4 machine

[alaskaunbound]

Just imagine, a low-end Pentium M based Mac mini is going to be compared against faster celeron or P4 desktops in similar price ranges. The Mac mini is going to look like it has a slow processor for the price. The Pentium M they choose might not be a much faster chip than the current G4 is. Then we have Rosetta slowing it down as well. So it might not be much faster than a previous generation Mac, or it might even be slower :mad:

Can you imagine the press reaction when Apple releases its first intel-based computer and things are SLOWER than the previous generation? People would pile on to say how overpriced Apple is compared to other PC makers that use similar chips.

The only hope I see is that the Mac mini performs at par with the current G4 machine on common tasks and is less expensive. A price drop would help difuse any negative press about the lack of performance gains.


A current pentium M will beat a celeron for sure and will have a good shot at the Pentium 4. If its a yonah, it will smoke both of them. The P4 has a 31-stage pipeline and is very inefficient per clock. The pentium M has like a 12-13 stage pipeline and is very efficient.

[heisetax]

I don't understand why they cannot go ahead and do the transition instead of dragging it out. They've already confirmed that OS X will work on Intel. They've confirmed that all the software out right now will run on Intel with Rosetta.

Who cares if the developers are ready?


There's more to it than just waiting for Intel to produce the chips. Some will be out soon, some may be close to a year. The really good ones, an upgrade to those coming out in the near future could be 2 years off.

Talk to someone that wants to run an OS 9 program with the current Macs. Most will tell you that for the most part it works, but not with every application. I know that I need to have a Mac around that will bot into OS9 just for that reason.

If it wasn't because of the fact that Apple needs to have the developers producing IntelMac software from day one, not down the future line some time. Ask the Quark people how long some time can be.

Just have a little patience on this change. As for me I have not been convinced that the new IntelMacs will really be any better than what we already have with the PPC Mac. I would think that it will be late 2007 or 2008 before we see any real increase over what we had before the last changes in the PowerMac & iMac. The PowerBook, iBook, & MacMini will be able to show gains much faster since they are a generation or two behind the PowerMac iMac group of computers.

Bill the TaxMan

[Les Kern]

Going to MacWorld Sunday to Saturday.... Going to be a hoot, but leaving the credit card home.

[Les Kern]

What a sick joke.

Have fun idiots. Your platform is self-destructing right from under you.

Congrats Jobs, your incompetence is turning Apple into Dell on the Intel processor roadmap trainwreck.

Lay off the caffeine and smokes dude. And I'd suggest a little Paxil.

[plinden]

I used to squirm at the thought of an intel inside sticker,
but I wouldn't care if they put it on the back by the ports or something.
:-p
Sheesh, what's this thing about stickers? The first thing I do with a new PC (even before tweaking for performance) is remove the stickers. It's not a big deal. Although, rehearsing this in my head, I think it would gall me to have to do that to a Mac out of the box.

Besides, I seriously doubt there will be any Intel stickers - even Dell is considering not putting any stickers on their machines. Apparently the 10 seconds it takes to do is a large percentage of the total build time for their PCs.

[plinden]

I hope this is true I really need to replace my old PC its barly running as it is now.....
Get an iBook or a refurb iMac to tide you over till next year.

[plinden]

And whomever thinks they're going to use the Centrino chip is completely delusional. They're so bad even most peecee makers are trying to distance themselves from it, machines built with it in often aren't mentioned excpet the fine print. Even Apple, for all their cheapness sometimes (need I mention video cards like someone did above), wouldn't be THAT cheap! I've watched people run a bake-off where the original PIII from 98 dusted a new Centrino and supposedly the Centrino is based on the PIII. Apple is going to be using the M chips (and beyond), and developers are being told to code to that, not Centrino. Pay attention before you post.

What are you talking about.:rolleyes: Centrino is not a chip, but rather an aggregation of cpu, chipset, and networking interfaces. It's just intel's marketing name which manufacturers can use provided they adhere to certain hardware requirements. All "centrino" notebooks to this point have included some variant of the pentium m processsor, but not all notebooks with a pentium m are centrino based...Make sense?:confused: ....Now I'm confused.


I think he's confused Centrino with Celeron. The Pentium M is as fast as a P4 clocked at about 1.5x the PM clockspeed - i.e. my 1.6GHz PM Thinkpad is as fast as a 2.4GHz P4.

Even so, the Celeron M is almost as fast as an equivalently clocked PM. It's just missing PM's speedstep technology so it doesn't have the same battery life (about 40% that of an equivalent Centrino laptop).

I have a feeling the first Mac Mini intels will have a Celeron M, since battery life is, of course, not important.

[ezekielrage_99]

It would make sense that Apple would replace the G4 Processors with the Intel Processors ASAP, it will give Apple the chance to get the bugs out of the Intel stuff before releasing it on the professional Powermac line.

I also believe there are quite a few people hanging off buying a Mac until the Intel Macs are released, early Mactel Systems after Xmas would also give the general public an idea what the whole Intel Apple thing is all about and what to expect in the coming year.

Personally I think we will see the Mac Mini, iBook and the Powerbook with the first generation Intel Processors by March at the latest, because lets face it the G4 is a good CPU but still old and slow compared to the newer Intel chips and processors.

[runninmac]

Just imagine, a low-end Pentium M based Mac mini is going to be compared against faster celeron or P4 desktops in similar price ranges. The Mac mini is going to look like it has a slow processor for the price. The Pentium M they choose might not be a much faster chip than the current G4 is. Then we have Rosetta slowing it down as well. So it might not be much faster than a previous generation Mac, or it might even be slower :mad:



I can say confidently that that will NOT happen. Apple will surely show some sort of demo showing how much faster it is than the PPC Mac mini.

[aafuss1]

Not to mention the fact that the G5's in the iMac are faster than a lot of the Pentium M's floating around.

No, the Mac Mini will get a Pentium M but it will be low-cost and thus not a top 'o the line CPU. Kinda like the current Mac Mini.



That's becasue the eMac is dead AFAIK. Apple killed it.
Actually, could Apple revise the eMac in the future, to keep its education sales strong?

[aafuss1]

PowerBooks should be due for Intel first.... The last "update" wasn't even really an update... Just a few "enhancments" to hold us over until the switch.

We shall see come January.

I'd also love to see Fox, NBC, & CBS to jump on the iTunes Video wagon.
How about more kid's shows and animated series-like Invader Zim, Skyland, Avatar, Lilo & Stitch, Dragon Tales, Sesame Street, PBS shows.

We already we have Suite Life of Zack and That's So Raven on the iTMS

[DeathChill]

http://forums.macnn.com/showthread.php?t=263394

What speed increase?

Fun test, interesting notes:

Dell 1.4GHz Pentium M: 2:53
Mac Mini 1.25GHz: 2:23
IBM 1.6GHz Pentium M: 2:14
1.5GHz PB: 2:04
Dual 800 G4: 2:03 (That's a 4 year old machine)

iMac G5 2GHz: 1:46


Dualcore Pentium D 3.2GHz: 56s
Dualcore G5 2.3GHz: 42s
Dual 2.7GHz G5: 37s
If those are all the photoshop tests then that's just proof of Rosetta's awesomeness, as well as the power of the Pentium chip line (excluding the P4's). Running a MASSIVE application in an emulated environment and still being competitive with the machines running it natively is insane.

EDIT: Unless that's on a Windows machine, but that'd be an odd comparison as they're for two different architectures and two different OS's. It's like comparing apples and oranges. xD

[AidenShaw]

Has Apple confirmed whether OSX Intel will support SSE3 or an earlier version?
Apple is saying 32-bit, SSE2 only is the base guaranteed configuration for OSx86. You need to do a run-time check to see if SSE3 is supported on the current system.

(see the Apple developer pages at http://developer.apple.com/hardware/ve/sse.html#ISA_Overview)

[AidenShaw]

A current pentium M will beat a celeron for sure and will have a good shot at the Pentium 4. If its a yonah, it will smoke both of them. The P4 has a 31-stage pipeline and is very inefficient per clock. The pentium M has like a 12-13 stage pipeline and is very efficient.
There are "Celeron M" chips that are the same chips as "Pentium M" chips, but with smaller cache and slower clocks.

The current "Celeron" chips are 64-bit "Pentium 4" chips with smaller cache and slower clocks.

The Celerons start out life identical to the faster chips - they are even cut from the same wafers. If a Pentium M chip or a Pentium 4 chip has some defective cache or can't clock as fast as the Pentiums, it's rebranded as a slower, smaller cache Celeron. (A couple of quick blasts from a laser can disable (the defective) part of the cache and/or lock the clock rate slower.)

[AidenShaw]

If those are all the photoshop tests then that's just proof of Rosetta's awesomeness, as well as the power of the Pentium chip line (excluding the P4's). Running a MASSIVE application in an emulated environment and still being competitive with the machines running it natively is insane.
Of course the Pentium systems are Windows boxes running the Windows version of Photoshop. But why is that Apples/Oranges?

And, of course, the test uses only one AltiVec-friendly filter....

[840quadra]

EDIT: Unless that's on a Windows machine, but that'd be an odd comparison as they're for two different architectures and two different OS's. It's like comparing apples and oranges. xD

Possibly Not,

As PS will be coded to run on the Intel and PPC processors with Universal Binaries in the future. The new code will be able to take advantage of the intel architecture, or PPC (depending on what is available when installed). The tests run on windows systems would give a relative baseline, and or starting point to compare the processors.

One thing that may help out, is the way OS X loads and runs programs when compared with Windows. The software may just run faster on a Unix based system, as compared to Windows running on the same or similar processors.

::EDIT::


And, of course, the test uses only one AltiVec-friendly filter....

That's a good point, I didn't even consider the type of filter for that test!

The baseline test should have used multiple features within PS, both Altivec and non Altivec freiendly technologies.

http://forums.macrumors.com/image.php?u=47064&dateline=1127904880&type=profile

[mambodancer]

I wouldn't be surprised if it's not an intel Powermac that's introduced at Macworld as well. I wouldn't put it past Jobs to introduce a 3-4Ghz + dual core Powermac ahead of expectations to wipe the embarassment of missing the 3Ghz G5 prediction of a year or so ago. I'm sure he'll stage another, "Oh, and one more thing..." event that may surprise a lot of people.

I'd also like to see Front Row bundled with the Apple remote and receiver so that it could be purchased and used with older Macs and see an iSight and Photobooth bundle too. And of course there's iLife '06 and iWork '06 around the corner.

[2nyRiggz]

bring em all out. im looking foward to all the product line....i love when new macs come out even if i dont get them.


Bless

[Frobozz]

Umm, what? These are what you call Pro users. You know, the ones who buy all the new expensive hardware?

Say what you want about Quark (I do!) but it still dominates the industry.

You mean the dying print industry that, on average, runs 4 year old machines as primary workhorses? Some of which still run OS 9? I have a feeling we're agreeing, more or less. I'm just taking a more jaded angle.

Pro users, while their demographics are varied, will be doing far more than pushing pixels around. Aside from huge print banners, I'd say 3D graphics, video, and scientific computation are the three dominant professional reasons to need a PowerMac, not Quark.

[oober_freak]

After reading many posts here, I don't know why people want to run Windows on a Mac?!?!

I understand that students who have to use applications which are Windows-only would be benefited by the intel macs.. but why the people who want to use their macs just for office work?

I mean come on.. why did you switch? Also for the average joe, Virtual PC is good enough.. for running small programs etc.

Also, some people on osx86project.org have reported that Vista beta builds don't install on disks with hfs+ partitions... so even if 1 partition out of 10 is hfs, vista won't install. Then I may be wrong.. not sure about this. Any MSDN guys here who can confirm?

Edit: http://forum.osx86project.org/index.php?showtopic=2559&hl=vista This is the thread where the guy couldn't install Vista with hfs+ partitions present

[one3]

Something that may mean nothing:

Fairly large chain store in Canada (London Drugs) has the MacMini 1.42 on sale from $749.00 to $599.00 at their stores (while quantities last) - not sure why? They never have Macs on sale unless they are clearing out old inventory to replace with newly released products. Yet of course in this case there are no new Mac minis ... unless you count the reports of updated Mac minis appearing in place of slower ones here and there without an official Apple release.

Again this is probably nothing at all ... but thought I'd pass the info on as it's very unusual to see a "sale" on Mac systems like this.

[EricNau]

Sorry, I didn't have time to read through all of this, but...
What processors will Apple use in the Mac mini? I'm hoping for at least a P4 if not something better, would that be possible?

[AvSRoCkCO1067]

Apple could always just come out with an entirely new line of computers (possibly a desktop or a laptop) with Intel, keeping its other computers under PPC Architecture for a bit. You know, just to work out the bugs.

I think that, although the Mac Mini certainly isn't a speed demon, that it is not the area in which Apple would want to focus on the most. Look at Apple's current offerings (especially considering bang for the buck.)

The PowerMac is amazing - its recent update will certainly carry it along a while (until Intel comes out with something actually worthwhile for desktops...)

The iMac is pretty darn awesome too...

The Mini is slow, but for 500 bucks, I'm very happy with my purchase :)

The iBook is also a bit slow, but again, for a 1000, much better than its PC counterparts (it never slows down, unlike my other PC laptop and desktop)

The POWERBOOK - ah, therein lies the lagger. Although its screens are undoubtedly beautiful, its in need of a facelift. Bang for the buck considerations; iBook is better. Apple needs to update the PowerBook's processer (re: FBS) as soon as possible - it will probably be one of the earlier updates!

[Multimedia]

Wait for them to actually come out before you say that too emphatically :rolleyes:

Why? The new PowerMac G5 Quad is more than competitive with its x86 counterparts, and people who buy PowerMacs generally have hefty software that they need, and it wouldn't be wise to release an Intel PowerMac before all of those developers have their software ready.
PowerMacs will be LAST to get intel inside. The software is ready. Apple said they have all their software parallel Intel ready. That's not the issue. The issue is that PPC dual core will still outperform intel dual core until 2007 when the switch will be implemented when PPC can no longer keep a performance lead.

[Multimedia]

My concern with a Pentium M mac mini is that it will underwhelm the press and negatively influence consumers' perceptions of the first Intel-based mac.

Just imagine, a low-end Pentium M based Mac mini is going to be compared against faster celeron or P4 desktops in similar price ranges. The Mac mini is going to look like it has a slow processor for the price. The Pentium M they choose might not be a much faster chip than the current G4 is. Then we have Rosetta slowing it down as well. So it might not be much faster than a previous generation Mac, or it might even be slower :mad:

Can you imagine the press reaction when Apple releases its first intel-based computer and things are SLOWER than the previous generation? People would pile on to say how overpriced Apple is compared to other PC makers that use similar chips.

The only hope I see is that the Mac mini performs at par with the current G4 machine on common tasks and is less expensive. A price drop would help difuse any negative press about the lack of performance gains.Right. Apple is going to begin the switch with an underperformer and no smokin' demos. :rolleyes:

And what business plan have you been smoking? :rolleyes:

[puuukeey]

yum. excited.:)

[reflex]

*price point may attract switchers


I will probably buy a Mini the moment it's an Intel. I don't want to buy a laptop (had an iBook once, couldn't get used to the keyboard) and the others are too expensive because I don't know if I will actually use it for anything useful.

The Mini is perfect because it's cheap and small (more than enough space taken up by computers already).

[reflex]

I used to squirm at the thought of an intel inside sticker,
but I wouldn't care if they put it on the back by the ports or something.
:-p

My (Sony) laptop had a lot of stickers on it (Intel inside, all the specs, ...). They were gone minutes after I unpacked it.

[BenRoethig]

PowerMacs will be LAST to get intel inside. The software is ready. Apple said they have all their software parallel Intel ready. That's not the issue. The issue is that PPC dual core will still outperform intel dual core until 2007 when the switch will be implemented when PPC can no longer keep a performance lead.

They never said that. The PowerMac G5s will be phased out last. Concurrent release of the PowerMac G5 and the intel PowerMac is definitely a possibility.

[decksnap]

You mean the dying print industry that, on average, runs 4 year old machines as primary workhorses? Some of which still run OS 9? I have a feeling we're agreeing, more or less. I'm just taking a more jaded angle.

Pro users, while their demographics are varied, will be doing far more than pushing pixels around. Aside from huge print banners, I'd say 3D graphics, video, and scientific computation are the three dominant professional reasons to need a PowerMac, not Quark.

My dual 2.3 disagrees with you. The 'dying print industry'? Where did you come up with that one?

[ack_mac]

Apple could always just come out with an entirely new line of computers (possibly a desktop or a laptop) with Intel, keeping its other computers under PPC Architecture for a bit. You know, just to work out the bugs.

I think that, although the Mac Mini certainly isn't a speed demon, that it is not the area in which Apple would want to focus on the most. Look at Apple's current offerings (especially considering bang for the buck.)

The PowerMac is amazing - its recent update will certainly carry it along a while (until Intel comes out with something actually worthwhile for desktops...)

The iMac is pretty darn awesome too...

The Mini is slow, but for 500 bucks, I'm very happy with my purchase :)

The iBook is also a bit slow, but again, for a 1000, much better than its PC counterparts (it never slows down, unlike my other PC laptop and desktop)

The POWERBOOK - ah, therein lies the lagger. Although its screens are undoubtedly beautiful, its in need of a facelift. Bang for the buck considerations; iBook is better. Apple needs to update the PowerBook's processer (re: FBS) as soon as possible - it will probably be one of the earlier updates!

Yes, I do not see Apple putting an expensive CPU in the Mac Mini. Why? Because the Mini was designed to be the low-entry Mac in the lineup. I would suspect that they will either go with a Celeron processor in order to stay within the $500 price barrier. Apple is switching more and more users from Windows to OS X (including myself as of a few weeks ago). My question is this. How much slower will my updated (got lucky) Mac Mini with 1.5GHZ, and 1GB RAM be versus a low-end Celeron processor? The Yonah chips sound great, but I just do not see that happening in January or at the price the mini is at..

Plus, why the recent update for the Mini's then? What would be the purpose of bumping the Mini's for just a few months before they release the Intel model? This does not make sense to me... Could it be that the iBook will get the first Intel chips, or possibly even the Powerbook (and we all know that the PB is due for a significant update)...

[blybug]

How about the Intel Mac mini becoming the mythical "iHome" that stealthily takes over living rooms the way the iPod took over everyone's front pocket?

Build in an iPod dock on top (remember the speculation about that?), stick a TV tuner in the back, and the IR receiver on the front. Include the remote and an updated Front Row v1.1 that is iPod, TV, and network aware for shared music/photos/movies and net radio, keep the price reasonable, and advertise the heck out of it to attract everyone who ever bought an iPod to get one.

Apple sells 37 million :) Mac minis to the iPod masses who want to plop their iPods (and their buddies' iPods when they visit) into their computers and mess around with Front Row. They then discover the OS X & iLife experience in the process, and over time transition their future purchases to higher end Macs. Meanwhile the "Intel inside" gets a test run and good word of mouth from the 37 million as the x86 transition moves up the product line.

Just needs a catchy name like iPod to link it together in the public's mind. :confused:

[Evangelion]

http://forums.macnn.com/showthread.php?t=263394

What speed increase?

Fun test, interesting notes:

Dell 1.4GHz Pentium M: 2:53
Mac Mini 1.25GHz: 2:23
IBM 1.6GHz Pentium M: 2:14
1.5GHz PB: 2:04
Dual 800 G4: 2:03 (That's a 4 year old machine)

iMac G5 2GHz: 1:46


Dualcore Pentium D 3.2GHz: 56s
Dualcore G5 2.3GHz: 42s
Dual 2.7GHz G5: 37s

Yes,because Photoshop is the only app people use on their computers :rolleyes:

[Evangelion]

If they do this the Mac Mini will be WAY faster then the iMac G5. No one would buy an iMac after January.

Uh, what makes you think that? iMac has 1.9Ghz and 2.1Ghz G5 in it. They CAN use x86-CPU that is slower than that you know. Or do you think that they will cram the fastest CPU possible in there?

No, they will provide an upgrade on the CPU-front, but tey will not upgrade it so much that it will harm the sales of other systems. Besides, by that time, iMac might get a speed-boost as well.

And besides CPU, there's the question of other things. the vid-card, HD, RAM etc. etc. All those could be faster on the iMac.

[Frobozz]

Yes,because Photoshop is the only app people use on their computers :rolleyes:

Exactly! Let's see a comparison of window resizing in the OS, or the rendering of a web page. User Interface tasks are the single most perceivable factor to productivity.

I think if Apple can reach a point where the real world performance we see in high end PowerMac's are in their low end machines, we'll be in great shape. I don't care what CPU is in it anymore. It would have been nice to be a PowerPC, but if Intel has got a couple tricks up it's sleeve, I'm more than happy to have them.

As my Sig suggests, my next Mac will almost certainly be an Intel PowerBook.

[AidenShaw]

Yes,because Photoshop is the only app people use on their computers :rolleyes:
...and because "radial blur" is the only thing that people do when they run Photoshop :rolleyes:

[twoodcc]

i don't think the first intel mac mini will be the greatest, but it's good to see apple starting early. i wouldn't buy the first intel mac though.

[RobHague]

...and because "radial blur" is the only thing that people do when they run Photoshop :rolleyes:

You kidding? :eek: I spend all-day with Radial Blur!! As soon as i see a picture... RADIAL BLUR!! Infact im hoping we see Adobe Photoshop RBE (Radial Blur Edition) with extra cool radial blur features!! I upgraded my G5 so Radial Blur would blur faster! :D

Anyhow.... No i don't see the Mac Mini turning Intel in january. It would p**s off anyone who bought one over the Christmas period (do apple want to p**s potential switchers off after thier first mac experience?) especially if its a move to Intel.

I hold out hope that they might use Freescale and get in those fabled G4's running at a speed of about 1.7Ghz. PCI Express and DDR2 would be a bonus too since the mini is now the only Mac without it. Even if they use lower speed DDR2 there is surley a gain from the fact that its lower power and so less heat than standard DDR.

I see a few problems with an Intel Mini in January, but this is just my personal view. Apple would need to add something major to the system or it will look poor value next to other cheap PC's (if they are both intel and look simular specs on paper are people going to be tempted to switch by paying more?)
and also i know Rosetta runs PPC apps well, but is that really what the Mini needs? Even more of a performance disadvantage. Intel systems get native x86 versions of photoshop or whatever app and run as well as they can, and mini uses have to use a PPC version going through rosetta and any performance implications (or bugs?) that go with that. If they 'make up' for that by pumping up the CPU power then they threaten to overshadow higher-priced products and make the mini cost more to produce....

I think there is more chance of the Powerbooks getting the Intel treatment first.

[AidenShaw]

You kidding? :eek: I spend all-day with Radial Blur!! As soon as i see a picture... RADIAL BLUR!! Infact im hoping we see Adobe Photoshop RBE (Radial Blur Edition) with extra cool radial blur features!! I upgraded my G5 so Radial Blur would blur faster! :D
I stand corrected :cool:

I see a few problems with an Intel Mini in January, but this is just my personal view....

I think there is more chance of the Powerbooks getting the Intel treatment first.
I'll bet on the MiniMacIntel as the first....

1. Apple is telling developers to code for a Dothan system. (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=1740048&postcount=64) The Powerbook would probably get a Yonah dual-core, the single-core Dothan wouldn't put the "Power" back in Powerbook in a big enough way. (The Dothan PB would look good next to the G4 PB, but not against the Dothan MiniMac or Dothan iBook.)

2. The MiniMac's target audience is more likely to be happy enough with native Intel iLife apps - the Powerbook crowd would be more likely to need 3rd party apps that wouldn't be native....


Apple is subjecting the 32-bit OSx86 to a minor handicap by using Dothan as the base system (instead of Yonah)....

[obeygiant]

(The Dothan PB would look good next to the G4 PB, but not against the Dothan MiniMac or Dothan iBook.)


many Dothans died to give us this information.... :)

[plinden]

Sorry, I didn't have time to read through all of this, but...
What processors will Apple use in the Mac mini? I'm hoping for at least a P4 if not something better, would that be possible?
Why? The P4 is hot, it won't fit well into the Mini's box. And Intel are dropping the P4s anyway and moving to P-M based chips.

The P-M's are higher performance for equivalent clockspeed, and run cooler.

My predictions for the middle of 2006:
Mac Mini - Celeron-M, 1.6GHz in January, single core Yonah towards end of year.
iBook - single core Yonah, 1.8/2.0GHz (approximately, I don't think the clock speeds have been announced yet)
PowerBook - dual core Yonah, 1.84/2.17GHz

The PowerBook will move to dual core Merom in early 2007, about the same time Yonah single core will be in the Minis. I can't see either the Mini or iBook going dual core until all CPUs are dual core. The iMac will switch to dual core Merom at the same time as the PB.

This is all speculation and so I expect to spectactularly wrong, especially since the different CPUs are likely to have different sockets (Celeron-M especially) and would require a mobo redesign.

[BenRoethig]

Yes, I do not see Apple putting an expensive CPU in the Mac Mini. Why? Because the Mini was designed to be the low-entry Mac in the lineup. I would suspect that they will either go with a Celeron processor in order to stay within the $500 price barrier. Apple is switching more and more users from Windows to OS X (including myself as of a few weeks ago). My question is this. How much slower will my updated (got lucky) Mac Mini with 1.5GHZ, and 1GB RAM be versus a low-end Celeron processor? The Yonah chips sound great, but I just do not see that happening in January or at the price the mini is at..

Plus, why the recent update for the Mini's then? What would be the purpose of bumping the Mini's for just a few months before they release the Intel model? This does not make sense to me... Could it be that the iBook will get the first Intel chips, or possibly even the Powerbook (and we all know that the PB is due for a significant update)...

Aopen's knockoff has no problem meeting the Mini's price points with a P-M. Still, a $399 version with a celeron-m might be intriguing.

[ccrandall77]

I don't understand the logic in moving the Mac Mini to a faster Intel chip while the Powerbooks continue to use relatively slow G4 processors.

I think Apple needs to get their pro-line machines competitive before their consumer products. Obviously the iMac had the room to accomodate a hot processor like the G5, the laptops currently cannot. This makes the laptops the perfect line to upgrade first. And it would be stupid to upgrade the iBooks before the Powerbooks.

I don't really see a need to upgrade the Mac Mini before everything else. It's meant to be a low-end machine, so if it continues to run older G4s for a few months more, I don't see that as a big deal.

*Personally, I'd like to see a Mactel Powerbook announced at MWSF and available by Feb/Mar.

*Then in the Spring (Apr/May) they should announce Mactel iBooks and Mac Minis with availability by June

*iMacs should then get the Intel chips later in the year along with a CPU upgrade to the next-gen Intel processors for the Powerbooks.

*PowerMacs, already very competitive with Intel-based offerings, can get switched over by MWSF '07.

All machines could use regular video card upgrades.

With this roadmap, the machines that NEED the upgrades get them in the appropriate order and all machines get the upgrade within 1 year.

I totally disagree with the argument that the Mac Minis and even iBooks should be the first to go Intel because SW availability on x86 is less critical for consumer products. I've seen OS X on x86. Rosetta runs pretty darn fast and I think an upgrade to a high-end Pentium-M from a G4-1.67 would more than offset the performance lost by using Rosetta. Besides, do you really want an old G4 to run FinalCut Pro and other CPU intensive apps anyway??? Seems like the already powerful G5 desktops are more appropriate for those tasks.

[ack_mac]

Aopen's knockoff has no problem meeting the Mini's price points with a P-M. Still, a $399 version with a celeron-m might be intriguing.

Yes, but they offer a 1.4GHZ Celeron processor for $499 running Windows XP, and a 1.73 (Dothan) proc (about $699??).

This goes back to my original question, what type of performance gain would either of these chips offer over a G4 1.5GHZ PPC chip? Is this really that groundbreaking? I understand the fact that they are switing to Intel processors is significant, but from a psycological standpoint the GHZ bump is barely noticeable (from a numbers perspective). I could see where offering a dual core 2GHZ Yonah chip would result in a significant performance increase, but that will only be for a Powerbook type of announcement, that type of chip is certainly not destined to be in a mini.

As it stands right now, I will take my 1.5GHZ G4 PPC chip running Mac OS X anyday over an Aopen machine running Windows XP Home Edition..

[artifex]

I learned my lesson from my first Mini purchase... wait until Rev. B :)

[ccrandall77]

As it stands right now, I will take my 1.5GHZ G4 PPC chip running Mac OS X anyday over an Aopen machine running Windows XP Home Edition..

Let's not forget that with the Mac Mini, you get iLife '05, World Book 2006, and other free software that you won't get with XP.

Esp for a developer, XCode is free and VS.NET is several hundred.

The only reason I'd get the AOpen is I was foolish enough to get an Archos AV-500 that needs a Divx encoder and Tiger broke Divx!!!

[artifex]

This goes back to my original question, what type of performance gain would either of these chips offer over a G4 1.5GHZ PPC chip? Is this really that groundbreaking? I understand the fact that they are switing to Intel processors is significant, but from a psycological standpoint the GHZ bump is barely noticeable (from a numbers perspective). I could see where offering a dual core 2GHZ Yonah chip would result in a significant performance increase, but that will only be for a Powerbook type of announcement, that type of chip is certainly not destined to be in a mini.


I am told that Apple compiles optimizing for size, not speed, right now.
One small way they can boost the apparent speed of the x86 platform is to start compiling for speed. They will need to in the beginning, I'm sure, since most software will still be running through Rosetta.

[artifex]

Let's not forget that with the Mac Mini, you get iLife '05, World Book 2006, and other free software that you won't get with XP.


World Book? Was it pre-installed? I haven't seen it on my mini.

Oh, and p.s., can't you use VLC for DivX under Tiger? I think I've been doing that. Well, I haven't encoded to DivX on it, yet, but the output does support Div1, Div2, and Div3, among other things.

[ccrandall77]

World Book? Was it pre-installed? I haven't seen it on my mini.

Hmmm... maybe that got transferred over when I had it move settings/files/apps from my PB. Still, the Mini comes with a lot of nice SW stock.

[joebells]

everyone keeps talking about the pro apps not being ready and such and I know its been said that cs won't be ready til the end of the year probably but I will be really suprised if apple doesn't have their own pro apps ready already(maybe I'm missing a known fact where apple has said that their apps aren't ready yet? or something else) They might of even developed them that way from the start since they had osx that way.

[williedigital]

ok i didn't read through all the posts, so forgive if this has already been stated, but i wanted to correct an error I read.

intel integrated graphics (gma 900 at least) IS core image and quartz compatible (I've got a home built gma 900 system right now that supports them, as do the dtk's). As for speed vs radeon 9200, both subjectively and in xbench graphics tests, the two seem pretty evenly matched performance-wise. Nonetheless, it seems like the wise move would be for apple to try and integrate one of the x1000 series gpu's into the mini, as it has the ability to greatly speed up h264 decoding and encoding--the one thing non-gamer end users care about in a graphics card. It's also interesting that aopen's mac mini clone is supposedly gonna be on sale this week, with a celeron m, intel gma 900, component video out, etc. All for $399 sans OS. Maybe by jan apple can release a pentium m 1.6 or so system at the same price or cheaper than they are now. That would def beat current mini's at most tasks. Or maybe they could apply some of the extra funds to a better gpu (x1000 please!) rather than soaking up a couple hundred bucks of profit on each mini as they do now.

[williedigital]

oh and as for pentium m vs g4, my celeron m 1.4 laptop ($399 from dell--now there is a price point to ponder) appears in tests and subjectively to be just slightly faster than my 1.5 g4 mini. Keep in mind this is with a version of osx that isn't totally done and dialed up to my machine. I image in the end osx86 on a pentium m will seem about 20% faster than on an equivalent g4 machine. As for rosetta though, it's pretty damn slow compared to a g4. People are going to be upset when they try and pull up microsoft word and it feels like you're using it on a g3. Also, itunes isn't universal yet (at least outside apple).

[joebells]

well one of the reasons rosetta might feel really slow for you is that you dont' have a sse3 processor which rosetta uses. They have hacked the x86 build to support sse2 and I think even sse1. Now how much of a difference that will make is unknown to me but you would think it would make a fair bit of difference.

I believe yonah will support sse3.

[Peace]

well one of the reasons rosetta might feel really slow for you is that you dont' have a sse3 processor which rosetta uses. They have hacked the x86 build to support sse2 and I think even sse1. Now how much of a difference that will make is unknown to me but you would think it would make a fair bit of difference.

I believe yonah will support sse3.

There is no major difference between sse3 and sse2 as far as OSX86 is concerned..

And some of the new Dothan's have sse3

<edit> The newer Dothan's are now refered too as the single core Yonah </edit>

[DrFrankTM]

(First post here, although I've been a reader for about a year now. Don't be hatin'... :P)

AppleInsider wrote: "Looking ahead, Reitzes believes it is likely Apple will announce new products and content at its January 10, 2006 Macworld expo, with a possible introduction of the first Intel-based Macs. "We note that Intel will be introducing its dual-core “Yonah” processor in January (shipping now to vendors in pre-launch)," the analyst said." http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=1361

I'm not entirely sure how official the January introduction of dual-core Yonah is, but if those processors are available, might it be possible that Apple would mark the beginning of the transition in a big way with the introduction of Intel-based iBooks, PowerBooks AND Mac Minis? Say, with a single-core Yonah in the iBook and the Mini, and a dual-core in the PB...

It is pure speculation - I have no inside information -, but it seems to me that it would solve the potential problem of the iBook vs PB comparison, giving consumers clearly differentiated (and easily comparable) product lines, with a cheap desktop alternative, a cheap portable and a high-end portable. The iMac and the PowerMac are fine as they are, and I think an Intel-based Mac Mini (that can also run Windows every now and then, for those who really need it) would sell like mad independently of actual performance. [EDIT: Same goes for an iBook that is not substantially faster than the actual G4's.] Switching the three G4 machines to Intel together might help to avoid all sorts of confusions and unflattering comparisons, IMO.

With a dual-core Yonah, the hardware side of things seems ok. I just hope the software (Apple's and third parties') gets "good enough" by January to have a few new toys announced at MWSF (but shipping later?).

[AidenShaw]

There is no major difference between sse3 and sse2 as far as OSX86 is concerned..
SSE3 support is optional for processors running OSx86. SSE2 support is guaranteed to be there.


And some of the new Dothan's have sse3

<edit> The newer Dothan's are now refered too as the single core Yonah </edit>
Some people are mistakenly referring to single-core Yonahs as "Dothans" then.

Dothan was introduced in May 2004, and has never supported SSE3.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentium_M

[Peace]

SSE3 support is optional for processors running OSx86. SSE2 support is guaranteed to be there.



Some people are mistakenly referring to single-core Yonahs as "Dothans" then.

Dothan was introduced in May 2004, and has never supported SSE3.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentium_M

I stand corrected..

Yonah is the next step in the Pentium M line and is available in single core and dual core.

That's what I meant when I said Dothan supported sse3.

[xejn]

Not sure what to do now. I just ordered a Mac Mini from Apple.

I am buying it to replace a B&W upgraded to a 1Ghz G4, ram is maxed.

I could cancel and just keep limping along with the B&W, tough I really need USB 2 for my nano and the DVD drive to get some crap off my drive and do some video stuff, plus we really need a second computer in the house.

Ug.

Any suggestions?

[joebells]

osx86 may not require sse3 but the rosetta that they shipped to developers required it and hackers had to modify it to translate the sse3 instructions to sse2 instructions resulting in a performance penalty.

So back to the point that I was making he may have really poor performance with programs running under rosetta because of not having sse3.

[SiliconAddict]

After reading many posts here, I don't know why people want to run Windows on a Mac?!?!

I understand that students who have to use applications which are Windows-only would be benefited by the intel macs.. but why the people who want to use their macs just for office work?

I mean come on.. why did you switch? Also for the average joe, Virtual PC is good enough.. for running small programs etc.



Three words: Access (http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/FX010857911033.aspx) and MapPoint (http://www.microsoft.com/mappoint/default.mspx)

Add to that the several thousand dollars of software I have on hand that would be virtually flushed and I hope you get a small idea of where I'm coming from. And please. Please don't tell me to get a PC desktop. I do most of my work on the road. I need these tools on the road. Would you suggest I drag a PowerBook and my ThinkPad with me everywhere I go?
A dual booting PowerBook running Tiger/Leopard with Vista would rock.

[Peace]

Not sure what to do now. I just ordered a Mac Mini from Apple.

I am buying it to replace a B&W upgraded to a 1Ghz G4, ram is maxed.

I could cancel and just keep limping along with the B&W, tough I really need USB 2 for my nano and the DVD drive to get some crap off my drive and do some video stuff, plus we really need a second computer in the house.

Ug.

Any suggestions?

Keep the Mac Mini order.Everything here is mere speculation as to what computer comes out first on the Intel line.

Who knows maybe the Mac Mini AND iBooks AND the Powerbook will be shown at MacWorld

I strongly believe the transition is going much better than anticipated.

And I might add..Apple is telling developers to work with sse2 AND..
MMX(at one point referring to the AMD processor)
They believe there is no real advantage between sse2 and sse3 on the OSx86 port.

[plinden]

I stand corrected..

Yonah is the next step in the Pentium M line and is available in single core and dual core.

Not yet - the single core Yonahs will come out later than the dual cores, probably 2nd or 3rd quarter 2006.

[EricNau]

Why? The P4 is hot, it won't fit well into the Mini's box. And Intel are dropping the P4s anyway and moving to P-M based chips.

The P-M's are higher performance for equivalent clockspeed, and run cooler.

My predictions for the middle of 2006:
Mac Mini - Celeron-M, 1.6GHz in January, single core Yonah towards end of year.
iBook - single core Yonah, 1.8/2.0GHz (approximately, I don't think the clock speeds have been announced yet)
PowerBook - dual core Yonah, 1.84/2.17GHz

The PowerBook will move to dual core Merom in early 2007, about the same time Yonah single core will be in the Minis. I can't see either the Mini or iBook going dual core until all CPUs are dual core. The iMac will switch to dual core Merom at the same time as the PB.

This is all speculation and so I expect to spectactularly wrong, especially since the different CPUs are likely to have different sockets (Celeron-M especially) and would require a mobo redesign.
I always thought that a Pentium M was for notebook computers (doesn't the M stand for mobile)? So it just seems weird to me that Apple would put them in anything other than a Notebook.

[ccrandall77]

Not sure what to do now. I just ordered a Mac Mini from Apple.

I am buying it to replace a B&W upgraded to a 1Ghz G4, ram is maxed.

I could cancel and just keep limping along with the B&W, tough I really need USB 2 for my nano and the DVD drive to get some crap off my drive and do some video stuff, plus we really need a second computer in the house.

Ug.

Any suggestions?

I wouldn't cancel the order. You don't know for sure that a new Mac Mini using Intel CPUs will be announced at MWSF... and even if it is, will it be a compelling enough release to replace a current Mac Mini with for your purposes?

Just be happy with the Mini you have coming on the way. Then just wait for the Rev B Minis with Intel CPUs and upgrade then. You'll still get a pretty penny for the Mini you have coming when you eBay a year from now... or you can use it for something else.

I just got a Mini several weeks ago and I have NO intention of replacing it later. Of course, I also have a brand new iMac and plan to upgrade my Powerbook when a decent upgrade is available. But I'm using my Mini as part of my entertainment center and it'll be perfectly adequate for a long while.

If they ever turn the Mini into a true HTPC (with HD recording capability), then I'm definitely upgrading that machine!

[Val-kyrie]

Some people ... believe that Leopard will be for Intel only ( from posts I've seen )...

Fortunately, this couldn't be further from the truth. Apple should make this clearer - support for PPC will continue for years to come.

I agree. I think Apple will support PPC--at least for a little while, but I still fear the focus of the optimization has/will now shift to x86. I also think PPC support will be terminated by Apple, but not until X.6--the OS after Leopard.

[ro2nie]

He said BY June 2006.

Yes, and he also said there wasn't gonna be an iPod Video

[AidenShaw]

Yes, and he also said there wasn't gonna be an iPod Video
Didn't He also say that a flash-based music player was pointless?

It's pretty clear that He thinks that Mac zealots have no memory.... :o

[ack_mac]

I always thought that a Pentium M was for notebook computers (doesn't the M stand for mobile)? So it just seems weird to me that Apple would put them in anything other than a Notebook.


It does. The key thing is that Pentium M processors draw much less wattage (heat) thus make them an ideal candidate for the Mac Mini. This is one of the real reasons that Apple is switching to Intel to begin with.. IBM has had a very difficult time making a cooler G5 PPC proc for the Powerbook line for some time now. So the switch to Intel will allow Apple to have much faster processors for their laptops, and ultimately the Mini as well..

There is no way they will offer a Yonah chipset for the Mini in January (Yonah single core will most likely not be available, and it would cost way too much. Unless you want to buy a $800-900 Mini).

[Multimedia]

I stand corrected :cool:
I'll bet on the MiniMacIntel as the first....

1. Apple is telling developers to code for a Dothan system. (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=1740048&postcount=64) The Powerbook would probably get a Yonah dual-core, the single-core Dothan wouldn't put the "Power" back in Powerbook in a big enough way. (The Dothan PB would look good next to the G4 PB, but not against the Dothan MiniMac or Dothan iBook.)

2. The MiniMac's target audience is more likely to be happy enough with native Intel iLife apps - the Powerbook crowd would be more likely to need 3rd party apps that wouldn't be native....


Apple is subjecting the 32-bit OSx86 to a minor handicap by using Dothan as the base system (instead of Yonah)....Just want to thank you for this and the linked to analysis including clear explanation of the Intel processor roadmap which I had not seen elsewhere to date. This makes understanding the transition much easier. :)

[plinden]

I always thought that a Pentium M was for notebook computers (doesn't the M stand for mobile)? So it just seems weird to me that Apple would put them in anything other than a Notebook.
Why? They were designed for high performance for low power input, and are suitable for laptops. But what stops them being used in desktops? Absolutely nothing. It makes more sense than putting desktop CPUs into laptops or the P4 into the Mac Mini (if you think Mac fans are noisy, try working in my office when the P4 I have under the desk is running)

The Aopen Mac Mini clone has a Celeron M in the low end and a Pentium M in the high end.

The new mobile and desktop Pentiums are all based on the Pentium M.

[NewbieNerd]

[QUOTE=SiliconAddict]Three words: Access (http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/FX010857911033.aspx) and MapPoint (http://www.microsoft.com/mappoint/default.mspx)

Two more words: NBA Live :)

Although I hate using Windows, it would be really sweet to play my favorite basketball game on a mac.

[SuperThread]

many Dothans died to give us this information.... :)

This is the funniest thing I've read in a long time (or maybe it's just my lack of sleep talking–either way, I found that hilarious).

[EricNau]

It does. The key thing is that Pentium M processors draw much less wattage (heat) thus make them an ideal candidate for the Mac Mini. This is one of the real reasons that Apple is switching to Intel to begin with.. IBM has had a very difficult time making a cooler G5 PPC proc for the Powerbook line for some time now. So the switch to Intel will allow Apple to have much faster processors for their laptops, and ultimately the Mini as well..

There is no way they will offer a Yonah chipset for the Mini in January (Yonah single core will most likely not be available, and it would cost way too much. Unless you want to buy a $800-900 Mini).
Why? They were designed for high performance for low power input, and are suitable for laptops. But what stops them being used in desktops? Absolutely nothing. It makes more sense than putting desktop CPUs into laptops or the P4 into the Mac Mini (if you think Mac fans are noisy, try working in my office when the P4 I have under the desk is running)

The Aopen Mac Mini clone has a Celeron M in the low end and a Pentium M in the high end.

The new mobile and desktop Pentiums are all based on the Pentium M.

Thanks
I guess it makes sense.
I know this isn't the right thread to ask, but, what will be in the higher-end Macs (such as iMacs & Powermacs) - will them be Pentium M's also, or PD's, what about itanium 2's?
PS - I will barf if the answer is Celeron!

[jhu]

osx86 may not require sse3 but the rosetta that they shipped to developers required it and hackers had to modify it to translate the sse3 instructions to sse2 instructions resulting in a performance penalty.

So back to the point that I was making he may have really poor performance with programs running under rosetta because of not having sse3.

i doubt the performance penalty is due to sse3 -> sse2 since the instructions replaced are equivalent. and then there's the emulated instructions. i wonder how many of those are used in rosette. but the real performance penalty is having to decode and execute another instruction set.

see the following:


Description for SSE3->SSE2 Solution

This is a hybrid solution for running Mac OS X/Intel and especially Rosetta under SSE2-enabled CPUs. You don't need SSE3 anymore.

Technical Info

It is hybrid, since it uses a three-fold approach:

1. Rosetta's SSE3 instructions (MOVDDUP) are patched at runtime to more-or-less equivalent SSE2 instructions (MOVQ).
2. Relevant system files (CoreGraphics, oah750, libSystem.B.dylib) are pre-patched to enable fast execution speed (emulation is always slow!). I replaced SSE3 instructions (FISTT) with their more-or-less equivalent SSE2 analog (FIST).
3. SSE3 instructions, which raise an "Illegal Instruction" exception are specially treated:
1. FISTT instructions are 100% emulated by the kernel.
2. All other (unknown) SSE3 instructions are skipped.

Please note 3.1): This is rather important, since 2) "Pre-patched files" did not contain all files with SSE3 FISTT instructions in it. So 3.1) ensures that these will be handled, too.

[AidenShaw]

The new mobile and desktop Pentiums are all based on the Pentium M.
These chips are not yet available on the market (although the next-generation Yonah chips are now sampling (low volume pre-production)).

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentium_m and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conroe for more info about these upcoming chip families.


what about itanium 2's?
It's very unlikely that Apple will sell Itaniums - it is a different ISA which is not binary compatible with x86. Itanium would require another transition as serious as the PPC->x86 transition. The only way that this would happen would be if the x64 architecture hits a stone wall in a few years, and a radical change is required.

PS - I will barf if the answer is Celeron!
On your next plane trip, grab and save the barf bag - you may need it!

A Celeron would make a lot of sense for low-end Apple products. The Celeron M is the same chip as the Pentium M, just with smaller L2 cache and usually a lower range of FSB speeds.

Just perfect for Apple to use to put a real differentiator between lower end and mid-range models - while keeping the margins high by using the Celeron on the low end....

The "gack - Celeron" attitude around here is rather misinformed, Celerons offer good value and more than adequate performance. They're a bit slower, but quite a bit cheaper.

Why do you think that BMW sells a new 3-series with a 2.0 Litre engine?

Why shouldn't Apple put a Celeron M in an entry MiniMac or iBook?

[EricNau]

Why shouldn't Apple put a Celeron M in an entry MiniMac or iBook?
Because they can do better ;)

[AidenShaw]

Because they cam do better ;)
Would it be "better" to have an entry MiniMac at a lower price point, or to lose the sale to a Windows system?

You can still put the faster Pentium M chip in the higher end consumer systems....

BMW can "do better" as well, but they still sell the 3-series 2.0 L models to the people who would not be able to afford the same car with a 3.0 L engine....

[EricNau]

These chips are not yet available on the market (although the next-generation Yonah chips are now sampling (low volume pre-production)).

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentium_m and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conroe for more info about these upcoming chip families.



It's very unlikely that Apple will sell Itaniums - it is a different ISA which is not binary compatible with x86. Itanium would require another transition as serious as the PPC->x86 transition. The only way that this would happen would be if the x64 architecture hits a stone wall in a few years, and a radical change is required.


On your next plane trip, grab and save the barf bag - you may need it!

A Celeron would make a lot of sense for low-end Apple products. The Celeron M is the same chip as the Pentium M, just with smaller L2 cache and usually a lower range of FSB speeds.

Just perfect for Apple to use to put a real differentiator between lower end and mid-range models - while keeping the margins high by using the Celeron on the low end....

The "gack - Celeron" attitude around here is rather misinformed, Celerons offer good value and more than adequate performance. They're a bit slower, but quite a bit cheaper.

Why do you think that BMW sells a new 3-series with a 1.8 Litre engine?

Why shouldn't Apple put a Celeron M in an entry MiniMac or iBook?
Would it be "better" to have an entry MiniMac at a lower price point, or to lose the sale to a Windows system?

You can still put the faster Pentium M chip in the higher end consumer systems....

BMW can "do better" as well, but they still sell the 3-series 1.8 L models to the people who would not be able to afford the same car with a 3.0 L engine....
I guess for Mac mini's and iBooks it's ok. My original question was about iMacs and Powermacs...I just really don't want to see a celeron for higher-end computers.

[heartsglory]

My only concern is the GPU for the intel macs. For some, integrated Intel graphics are okay for the average user but what about those who do like a little more graphics muscle?:confused:

[generik]

My only concern is the GPU for the intel macs. For some, integrated Intel graphics are okay for the average user but what about those who do like a little more graphics muscle?:confused:

What do you mean by graphics muscle?

Photoshop?

Integrated will eat it just fine.

[Peace]

My only concern is the GPU for the intel macs. For some, integrated Intel graphics are okay for the average user but what about those who do like a little more graphics muscle?:confused:


Don't think the mainstream Mac Mini owner really expects "muscle" in the GPU.
Afterall it is the Mini and not a Powermac.It's not designed to sport a lot of muscle..

[generik]

Anyway does anyone know the exact date for MWSF?

I still stand by my prediction that there will be a PB release that day (a 7448!) so I will probably sell my current one before then :)

[heartsglory]

I was merely concerned about SMA, shared memory architecture. SMA is NOT cool. Wish it would just come with something that is known for decent rendering. Maybe even something like a decent (9600+) Radeon or a Geforce 5200FX go. Sure the laptop in my sig is an Emachines laptop (wish it was a mac) BUT because it has at least a decent gpu, I can still enjoy the occasional game on top of the average use of emails, internet, programming assignments (Computer Science major), etc. In my opinion the intel Extreme Graphics card is weaker than the current GPU in the mini. (Don't flame me for my opinion :) ) But why go backwards in features, you know?

[AidenShaw]

In my opinion the intel Extreme Graphics card is weaker than the current GPU in the mini. (Don't flame me for my opinion :) ) But why go backwards in features, you know?
Your opinion might change if you actually check some of the graphics benchmarks for the Intel graphics - it's pretty strong on some important tasks, although weak on high end 3D.

Like the Celeron M, the integrated graphics would be a good fit for the entry-level MiniMac/iBook to keep the price down. It would also meet the needs of most people who are looking for an entry-level system. Not everybody needs great 3D, nor do they want to pay for it. It also saves power (heat) and space, useful in very small systems like the MiniMac and laptops.

Just because you may not want integrated graphics, doesn't mean that it doesn't have a place in the lineup.

The Intel graphics is not required - some Intel chipsets don't have it, and some motherboards have both integrated graphics and a PCIe bus for discrete graphics. (Note how integrated graphics appears in the low end of the PC lineups, and discrete chips as you move up the range. Some lower/middle boxes have both integrated graphics and a PCIe slot for graphics, so one can choose - even after purchase.)

Low-end MiniMac - Celeron M, integrated graphics
High-end MiniMac - Pentium M, embedded nVidia or ATI 3D

Note that there are many reports on the web that the Apple Intel Developer Kit systems are very fast and snappy - and those systems have integrated graphics.

[plinden]

Would it be "better" to have an entry MiniMac at a lower price point, or to lose the sale to a Windows system?

You can still put the faster Pentium M chip in the higher end consumer systems....

I often shake my head in disagreement with AidenShaw's posts (although I don't think I've ever actually argued with him) but he's absolutely right about this. This review link (http://www.mobilityguru.com/2004/03/09/does_everything_have_to_be_a_centrino/index.html) is for a 1.3GHz Celeron M vs a 1.4GH Pentium M. Any performance difference can be explained by the difference in clock speed. The Celeron M falls down on battery life, but that's not a problem for desktops.

There is absolutely no advantage in using an expensive Pentium M in a Mac Mini over using a Celeron M, except that the clock speed tops out at 1.6 GHz (I think).

On the other hand, the Celeron version of the P4 is crap, not even useful for overclocking these days.

[jhu]

It's very unlikely that Apple will sell Itaniums - it is a different ISA which is not binary compatible with x86. Itanium would require another transition as serious as the PPC->x86 transition. The only way that this would happen would be if the x64 architecture hits a stone wall in a few years, and a radical change is required.


the only place where it would make sense is in the xserves. besides, darwin is as portable as apple touts it to be, they can easily accomplish this.

[AidenShaw]

the only place where it would make sense is in the xserves. besides, darwin is as portable as apple touts it to be, they can easily accomplish this.
Like I said, an Itanium (IA64) port would be as major as the PPC->x86 transition.

Getting Darwin running might be easy, but you'd have no applications... Not even OSX (note that OS X (even on PPC) is basically a 32-bit O/S - everything on Itanium needs to be true 64-bit).

Who'd want an Xserve without any applications?

[Multimedia]

Would it be "better" to have an entry MiniMac at a lower price point, or to lose the sale to a Windows system?

You can still put the faster Pentium M chip in the higher end consumer systems....

BMW can "do better" as well, but they still sell the 3-series 2.0 L models to the people who would not be able to afford the same car with a 3.0 L engine....Or to those who do NOT WANT TO pay more for gas to a guzzling 3 liter model when they can SAVE ON GAS with the 2 Liter model. It is not necessarily an economic decision. It can also be a GREEN choice. So the analogy is not a good one. Nevertheless, I think AldenShaw's roadmap info combined with his/her intimate understanding of how these Intel chips perform leaves him/her in charge of knowing what's what when it comes tot he transition. :p

[Multimedia]

Anyway does anyone know the exact date for MWSF?

I still stand by my prediction that there will be a PB release that day (a 7448!) so I will probably sell my current one before then :)
January 9-13 with SteveNote January 10.

[jhu]

Like I said, an Itanium (IA64) port would be as major as the PPC->x86 transition.

Getting Darwin running might be easy, but you'd have no applications... Not even OSX (note that OS X (even on PPC) is basically a 32-bit O/S - everything on Itanium needs to be true 64-bit).

Who'd want an Xserve without any applications?

it depends on what the xserve is used for. all opensource programs can be recompiled it. i don't have any experience with xserves, so i don't know what types of proprietary applications people run on these things.

[JCT]

Three words: Access (http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/FX010857911033.aspx) and MapPoint (http://www.microsoft.com/mappoint/default.mspx)
Add to that the several thousand dollars of software I have on hand that would be virtually flushed and I hope you get a small idea of where I'm coming from. And please. Please don't tell me to get a PC desktop. I do most of my work on the road. I need these tools on the road. Would you suggest I drag a PowerBook and my ThinkPad with me everywhere I go?
A dual booting PowerBook running Tiger/Leopard with Vista would rock.

I completely agree -- and thought of your comment when I saw this article today: http://www.architosh.com/news/2005-11/2005a1108_tb-multi-os.html


Could be interesting....

JT

[GyroFX]

back in high school, 9th grade, around 1995...i wrote a fantasy newarticle for the year 2010 or something... Back then, they were still using Motorola Chips and I had a powerbook 190C at the time. one of the mock up ads I put in it was the Merging of Apple and IBM and I called it IBMAC running a Power Pentium chip...:p

[840quadra]

it depends on what the xserve is used for. all opensource programs can be recompiled it. i don't have any experience with xserves, so i don't know what types of proprietary applications people run on these things.


That would require Apple to change it's price and marketing model for the Xserv. The biggest draw to it (for some) is it's unlimited licensing for connections, and the fact that it can run easy to use OS X. Yes you can recompile code for non itanium supported programs, but you have to build the compile algorithms before you can do this. This is quite a bit of programming in itself.


Might as well buy a DELL

Please do so, and stop such pointless posts. ;)

[generik]

January 9-13 with SteveNote January 10.

Alright then :D

Watch out for all new PBs!

[SmegFirk]

I think a lot of Mac users will be suprised at how well osx runs on x86 machines. I've played around with the OSX86 on my desktop pc which is a SFF with a 1.8ghz Pentium M in it. This 'release' has been hacked about and fudged to work with all sorts of generic pc's that it was never intended for. It'll keep up the an imac.

I may be wrong but i feel a lot of people who (quite often rightly) bash windows have unfairly transfered this 'hate' on to x86 hardware.

[AidenShaw]

it depends on what the xserve is used for. all opensource programs can be recompiled it. i don't have any experience with xserves, so i don't know what types of proprietary applications people run on these things.

Intel's price list for Itanium 2 chips goes up to $4226 per chip... The price for a 1.6 GHz 3 MiB cache dual-capable (w/ 533 MHz FSB) is $1172.

http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/releases/20041108comp.htm (a year old)

Considering that Apple wants $4K for a dual-CPU Xserve already, what would they charge for an Itanium Xserve where $4K only buys the pair of chips (plus margin)?

If you're going to recompile open-source apps for Itanium, stick with Linux....

[artifex]

Would it be "better" to have an entry MiniMac at a lower price point, or to lose the sale to a Windows system?

You can still put the faster Pentium M chip in the higher end consumer systems....

BMW can "do better" as well, but they still sell the 3-series 2.0 L models to the people who would not be able to afford the same car with a 3.0 L engine....

You're limiting yourself to Intel x86? Why not put a Sempron in it? :) Oh, I guess the lack of extensions. Too bad, as Apple already knows the HyperTransport bus.

[AidenShaw]

You're limiting yourself to Intel x86? Why not put a Sempron in it? :)
Apple won't be using any AMD CPUs for some time, you can be sure of that.

And why not Turion instead of Sempron?

Too bad, as Apple already knows the HyperTransport bus.
Judging from the complaints about the bridge chips in the PMG5, they don't know it very well....

[Val-kyrie]

The Celeron M falls down on battery life, but that's not a problem for desktops.

This is exactly why I can not see Apple putting a Celeron M in an iBook.

[gregoryp]

Why torture yourselves? Might as well be a Xeon for that matter. No, all points lead to Yonah...good old 945M.

Why? Other than the coincidental introduction, it also seems to do away with the need for a jury rigged graphics card.

From The Register...
The 945 will feature Intel's GMA 950 graphics core, which it introduced earlier this year in its desktop-oriented 945G integrated chipsets. The 950 brings to Napa improved video playback, thanks to 4x pixel rate motion compensation, adaptive de-interlacing and support for video anti-piracy techniques, including COPP, HDCP and CGMS-A. It will support a 667MHz power-efficient frontside bus and Intel's Matrix Storage Technology.

Hmmn. Anti piracy. Think Stevo would be interested in something like that while he's selling Pixar's latest movie online?

Also, Yonah will be part of Intel's VIIV (VIVE?) platform that is designed for Home Entertainment centers.

I just wish this damn Mac Mini Rev B would get here soon! I'm getting tired of waiting.