Intel Powerbook and iMac in January?

[MacRumors]

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

Appleinsider also reports (http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=1368) that Intel-based Macs will make their debut at Macworld San Francisco (MWSF) 2006 in January.

The rumor site expects that the iMac will be the first Intel-based Macs to be introduced in January. The Intel iMac is not expected to introduce any significant new features or case redesign, instead simply updating the processor with this revision. This is contrary to previous expectations (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2005/11/20051107115646.shtml) that the Mac mini would be the first Intel Mac introduced at MWSF 2006.

The Intel Powerbook is expected shortly after, perhaps as soon as February 2006. The new Intel Mac laptops are expected to be 20-25% thinner than current offerings.

Meanwhile, Intel Mac minis and Intel iBooks are not expected until the Spring of 2006.

[Blackheart]

That'd be some pretty thin laptops there. :D

Let's hope it's true.

[picklescott]

Does it seem odd to anyone else that they would update their two most recent products first? The *cough* "All-New Redesigned" *cough* iMac just came out!!! Though, the PowerBook is lacking, and hopefully will actually be "All-New and Redesigned" when it switches to Intel.

[OnceUGoMac]

For the Powerbook update, let's it's hope sooner than later.

[Natron]

The iMac is their main computer offering. I would also say the PowerBook is their main portable. The two most popular/best selling products they have, I assume. It makes sense.

[elo]

Let's hope that if this is true, the PowerBook is at least unveiled at MacWorld in January. I, for one, will preorder the day it's announced.

[p0intblank]

So now the Mac mini won't be getting the Intel upgrade until next spring? I'm sorry, but it's very hard to believe in any of these Intel-related rumors lately. If anything Intel-related happens at MacWorld 2006, the most I expect is a new Mac mini. But who knows with Apple... they may surprise us all with a huge announcement. But equipping more than one Mac with Intel processors in one event this soon into the game... I think that is a little far-fetched.

[Sped]

I currently own the original G4 iMac and have been considering purchasing a new one once the Intel machines arrive. Does anyone have any thoughts about which Intel processor might be used in an iMac? Would performance be about the same if not slightly improved?

It seems logical to me the an iMac or mini would get the first Intel processors because they will be the least cutting edge. From what I know, Intel's more advanced processors and more suited to Powerbook and PowerMac won't be available until later next year.

[realityisterror]

Uhhh... no.
I've decided not to trust AppleInsider anymore.
Nothing against them of course, just the fact that all they ever talk about is Intel (which if you ask me, I'm thinking everyone working on that project is under close watch)...

It could also be the fact that my PowerBook isn't even 2 weeks old yet... :o

But in waiting for this latest revision, I've learned not to trust any rumors. Particularly those involving Tuesdays...

reality

[memos]

ok, now i am truly pissed off!
if they do introduce the mentioned products, when will they ship them?

i was about to get a new powerbook because my titanium powerbook is becoming unbearably slow and I simply refuse to upgrade it in any way, what am I supposed to do?:confused: :confused: :confused:

[m-dogg]

The powerbook needs it, even with its most recent update. I really think that will be the first model to go Intel.

But the iMac? I don't know about that. It's got a G5 which is a nice processor. It doesn't need to switch as badly as the G4 based models do IMO.

[gammamonk]

January is just too far ahead of schedule. Even if Apple could, I don't think they would release that soon. Besides, just AFTER Christmas? That doesn't make any sense.

[alexandr]

ok, so i have the new imac on its way right now...

what should i do? i tend to not trust first releases of anything made by apple. so perhaps this falls under that category.

does anyone think it's worth returning the imac for? i mean is it really going to make a huge difference at this point.

you think it's wise to wait and see how this whole intell thing works out?:confused:

[DakotaGuy]

That makes no sense. The G5 is still a top of the line processor. They could easily go dual-core in the iMac's if they want more performance. Also, clock speeds have room to grow as well. I would think they should do everything to get the G4 phased out first, then worry about the G5 models. Does Intel have anything available right now for a desktop computer that is way better then the G5? Maybe they do, but it seems like a mistake to replace the iMac G5 so soon.

Also, if they do I would be upset, because it will be hard to even give mine away after they go Intel. I thought I had a lot more time before that happened. I guess we will have to see. I just don't think this information is right. Why would you want the first one to be one of your best selling, most popular models if there are issues with it? I think trying it out in a lower volume model and getting the kinks worked out before unleashing it across the line makes more sense to me.

ok, so i have the new imac on its way right now...

what should i do?

I would go for it. The G5 is a fast processor. If they switch to Intel this soon it could actually slow things down. The only bad thing is that shiny new iMac would be an orphan and it would be hard to give away when the new ones come out and all people have on their mind is..Intel...Intel...Intel.

[shadowfax]

oh, you poor souls clinching your brand new Powerbooks. have you already forgotten the TITANIUM POWERBOOK HISTORY? DANG! I got my first Mac, a super-loaded GHz Tibook, in November of 2003, literally days after they were announced. and that was actually a reasonable upgrade--you know, they sped up the processor some 'n' stuff.

NOT TWO MONTHS LATER.... MWSF.. oh, gee, 12 and 17 inch aluminum powerbooks! now granted, it was a good long while before the 15 inch one saw the light of day, but it's not at all outside the realm of possibility that they would do something crazy like update the powerbooks a lot sooner than you think... and I would be thoroughly unsurprised if it was the 12 inch powerbook that saw one of the first MacIntel conversions--It would be their coolest laptop by far if it were widescreen and fast, and 1 inch thin like the other ones.

Not that I would give any credence to this article, which I regard as mere speculation by someone who's about as in-the-know as 75% of the people that read MacRumors, but still, just because the powerbooks were recently updated doesn't mean that they won't be among the first to see the new Intel processors. And rightfully so, because they're really hurting badly on performance, and laptops are probably the most important line of computers to have be attractive, especially when you're trying to woo a halo effect out of a bunch of iPod junkies. How would it be if they upgraded the iBook first? it's hard enough to distinguish those two lines as it is!

Ed: and yes, gammamonk, they announced those AlBooks in January, just a few weeks after Christmas...

[kretzy]

I think it makes sense to release the iMacs and PBs as the first with intel chips. As someone has already mentioned, they are the most popular of Apple's computer products so people will be eager to test out the new processors in them. Seeing as the iMac has just been recently updated, just changing the chip would not prove too much hassle for consumers. The PB on the other hand is ready for a HUGE overhaul, and it would make absolute sense to do this in conjunction with a new processor. It would be absolutely amazing if they really end up being 25% thinner....I'd buy one straight away! ;)

[powerbook911]

Also, if they do I would be upset, because it will be hard to even give mine away after they go Intel. I thought I had a lot more time before that happened. I guess we will have to see. I just don't think this information is right.

That is yours and mine logic that says the value of yours will drop after Intel, but it won't. If you get the Intel one, within a few weeks of release, you'd still be able to get a good amount on ebay. Macs really hold value, even though chip generations, etc.

Overall, I don't find this rumor unbelievable at all. I find it is *very* accurate. Anyone who thought Apple wasn't going to have Intel macs until the very month they said they would be shipping by are not looking at this correctly. Apple wants to surprise and beat competitors.

The Powerbook update this fall was simply to make it more attractive, for those who need a machine now. It added some features and cut the price. Nice.

Appleinsider has been quite accurate lately, and this rumor just makes sense, in my opinion.

[DakotaGuy]

So what chip will be in this new iMac and is it going to be way faster then the current G5 models? Will it be fast enough that apps that have to run with Rosetta will still be faster then on the G5's?

[nagromme]

iMac? That would be weird... but maybe this transition demands some weird choices.

PowerBooks soon isn't weird at all. PB's have the greatest need.

And I have the greatest need FOR them :)

Bring it on, Apple, I was born to be your rev A Guinea pig!

I hope there are some slivers of truth in these rumors.

[Dr. Dastardly]

Its probably too soon to come up with a radical new case design for the pennicle design computer in the industry.

[Sol]

I can understand that the PowerBooks would use x86 but why the iMacs? It is not like there is any urgency to make them more powerful than they are now. Apple should update the PowerBook and iBooks in January and use the top G4 processors in a Mac Mini revision. The line up should be x86 for portables, G5s for desktops and G4s for eMac & Mini, at least until OS X 10.5 comes out.

[memos]

WHAT TO DO!?
WHAT TO DO?

(goddammit, where's that committing suicide smiley when you need it)

[zv470]

let's hope no laptops with hinge-cam.

[bellis1]

Poppycock!

[SiliconAddict]

iMac will be the first Intel-based Macs to be introduced in January

Oh damn well better not. Everyone remember the final battle of gondor in Return of the King? The users who converge on Apple's corp HQ is going to be about as pissed and about as many. :eek: :D

[jwp1964]

I am looking for that 13 inch widescreen iBook or PB!

[rlwimi]

The line up should be x86 for portables, G5s for desktops and G4s for eMac & Mini, at least until OS X 10.5 comes out.

Right...

Because in a year Intel's disastrous roadmap is going to magically be better and won't continue to have cancelations and product slips.

The reports of Apple begging Intel to rush out the door the chips that are currently due for late next year should be a clear indication of just how bad things are for Apple's chip future.

Mac users should just get used to the fact that they are stuck with the last place chip vendor no matter what now. IBM gave Apple the boot and there is no going back no matter how bad the Intel chips are and AMD can't supply enough chips for even for Apple's tiny marketshare.

[SiliconAddict]

I can understand that the PowerBooks would use x86 but why the iMacs? It is not like there is any urgency to make them more powerful than they are now.



with the possible exception being H.264 support. Simply we have no idea what Apple has planned beyond hardware in 2006. There could be something that warrants a quick transition to Intel. Who knows. I wouldn’t dismiss it so fast. What with the Shuffle, Mac Mini, Intel Transition, etc. Saying Apple won’t do something is down right stupid at this point. They could do anything at this point.

[SiliconAddict]

Right...

Because in a year Intel's disastrous roadmap is going to magically be better and won't continue to have cancelations and product slips.



Warning! warning! Fanboy alert! Fanboy alert! :rolleyes: Detecting high reality distortion fields ahead. Please do us all a favor and drop the complete and total anti-Intel theme. Just about every post you've made since joining has been Intel sucks this. Intel sucks that. The rest of us who know better are getting really sick of it. Esp when you don't backup ANY of your comments with proof or facts. But what am I saying. That requires someone to stop talking crap for 30 second to put up a clear and coherent argument. Something you haven't done yet.

[wilburpan]

Mac users should just get used to the fact that they are stuck with the last place chip vendor no matter what now. IBM gave Apple the boot and there is no going back no matter how bad the Intel chips are and AMD can't supply enough chips for even for Apple's tiny marketshare.
Except that if something happens to make the Apple-Intel relationship to go south, transitioning over to an AMD-based Mac will be trivial, especially in comparison to the PowerPC to Intel transition.

So even though one can argue that AMD is manking the faster processor these days (which I don't want to do here), the fact that Apple has decided to throw their lot in with Intel does not mean that Apple is stuck in any way.

[mpqtpie]

ok, now i am truly pissed off!
if they do introduce the mentioned products, when will they ship them?

i was about to get a new powerbook because my titanium powerbook is becoming unbearably slow and I simply refuse to upgrade it in any way, what am I supposed to do?:confused: :confused: :confused:

I would buy a new PB now rather than wait. The possibility of Intel PBs coming so soon isn't a given and is def just speculation. Even if they do come out with new ones you could always resell on ebay the PB you buy now and still possibly break even or come close. And in the meantime you'll be using a faster and newer machine instead of suffering for another 4 months.

[Staffroomer]

I thought they were expecting iBooks to be out in January.. Here's me hanging onto my dollars. What a bummer!!! :mad:

[SiliconAddict]

I thought they were expecting iBooks to be out in January.. Here's me hanging onto my dollars. What a bummer!!! :mad:


Hi. welcome to MacRUMORS Enjoy your stay. ;)

[generik]

Woah! Time to sell my POS powerbook!

The laptop which can't even play Battlestar Galactica DVD without pops and stutters!

[drater]

Right...

Because in a year Intel's disastrous roadmap is going to magically be better and won't continue to have cancelations and product slips.

The reports of Apple begging Intel to rush out the door the chips that are currently due for late next year should be a clear indication of just how bad things are for Apple's chip future.

Mac users should just get used to the fact that they are stuck with the last place chip vendor no matter what now. IBM gave Apple the boot and there is no going back no matter how bad the Intel chips are and AMD can't supply enough chips for even for Apple's tiny marketshare.

Anyone else look at this newbiees other posts...not one positive thing, all bashing...listen, Bill, you mind if I call you Bill? No? Ok, Mr. Prince of Darkness, you mind if I call you Mr. Prince of Darkness? No? Ok, well, anywho...SHUSH!

[Bonte]

I'l buy a mini for TV use the first day the intel version with frontrow hits the market. :cool:

My son wants a new iMac and i'm willing to help pay for it but its not going to be an Intel iMac, thats for sure. Just a safety measure he won't be running Windblows, he won't have as much games but hec, 3 major game consoles get updated the next year. Maybe Apple wants to be ahead of these consoles, a lot of money is going to be spent on hi tech gear next year.

[weckart]

So, Apple is about to launch Intel based hardware as early as January? Has anyone even thought that this may be academic if the OS is not ready yet? As of now, both are at 10.4.3 as far as features go, but spend even a second at the relevant forums and you can see that there is still a lot of work to do to get OS X86 ready for the market. iTunes is rumoured to have been ported to Intel, but apart from iPhoto, the rest of the iApps are still PPC, to say nothing of the rest of Apple's stable of applications.

[Anik]

Nuts! Nuts! Nuts! I was all excited that my 20" iMac had just left Anchorage, AK, on the way here, and now I'm wondering whether to send it right back where it came from!

According to this site (http://www.systemshootouts.org/processors.html), the 2.1 ghz G5 in the 20" iMac is roughly real-world equivalent to a 3.2 ghz Pentium 4, which is nice, and adequate, but I have no problem believing that Apple could drop a 2.4 ghz Pentium-M, or even a dual-core 3.0 ghz Pentium-D into the iMac's svelte little case, leaving me with a serious performance defecit on a computer I will have had in my posession for just couple of months.

Oh, duh, the new iMac will likely use a dual-core Yonah, as described here (http://www.tgdaily.com/2005/06/15/first_apple/). So, to quote from that article:
Compared to an application's speed on a native platform, a Transitive translated version usually reaches about 80 percent of the original computational performance, Wiederhold said. Take into account the speed improvement the Pentium M will offer over the PowerPC architecture, and Mac users are likely to see about even performance levels. Industry sources told Tom's Hardware Guide that an increase in performance will be rather evolutionary for users and speed increases will be more visible over time.
So, great; perhaps a 20% increase in raw performance. Ideally no change initially, but the new iMac would get 'faster' as the software evolved for the new processor platform. Obviously, that 20% would help a lot in mantaining my conjectural new Mac's usability over the coming years. :(

I KNOW the standard argument, "if you need it, buy it; if you don't, wait", but I am operating on some strict financial limitations, and while I could survive on a computer that is slower than it needs to be, it will only serve to be an annoyance over the several years I will use the machine before I am able to purchase again. The dismal Windows laptop I'm using right now (a P4 1.8) is just about dead (physical damage due to demanding field work in my previous employment) and I'm anxious to switch before it blows up in my face, but after waiting almost a month for the 20" iMac, I've grown hardened to waiting, and could manage a while longer if I had to - even if the computer does die.

Frankly, this puts me in a foul mood. Sure, it's just a question of being envious of the better computer that someone else buys, but with the substantial investment that this purchase means to me, I would like to have had at least some accurate information upon which to make my decision. I had decided that 8 months of extra use was worth the earlier purchase of the last G5 iMac; I am not at all convinced that 2 months is worth the same premium.

If anyone has any further informtion on this story, I'd love to hear it, since obviously it affects my purchase plans directly. :(

Anik

[generik]

So, Apple is about to launch Intel based hardware as early as January? Has anyone even thought that this may be academic if the OS is not ready yet? As of now, both are at 10.4.3 as far as features go, but spend even a second at the relevant forums and you can see that there is still a lot of work to do to get OS X86 ready for the market. iTunes is rumoured to have been ported to Intel, but apart from iPhoto, the rest of the iApps are still PPC, to say nothing of the rest of Apple's stable of applications.

I will be more than happy to be a paying beta tester for Rosetta!

[revjay]

ok, so i have the new imac on its way right now...

what should i do? i tend to not trust first releases of anything made by apple. so perhaps this falls under that category.

does anyone think it's worth returning the imac for? i mean is it really going to make a huge difference at this point.

you think it's wise to wait and see how this whole intell thing works out?:confused:

I guess the question to ask is...(if you believe the rumour)...do you need (want) an iMac between now and early 2006?

My iSight iMac has endured Shanghai, Anchorage, Memphis, Mississauga and is likely soaring over the "true north strong and free" and I can't wait to cut the seal on the box and plug it in...in other words, I don't believe the rumour.

You knew Intel was coming before you ordered your G5...what is different now?

[Hiroshige]

Nuts! Nuts! Nuts! I was all excited that my 20" iMac had just left Anchorage, AK, on the way here, and now I'm wondering whether to send it right back where it came from!

...

Anik



They cannot put a Pentium-D in the iMac because the chip is too hot.
The 2.4 Pentium-M would be a 15% speed boost over the current 2.1 GHz G5, according to the chart you link too.
There are no other radical technologies they could put into the rumored iMac that would increase performance.
Your iMac purchase will serve you well for several years and should retain its value if you wish to sell it and will be a collector's item anyway.

[ksz]

If the iMac is the first to get an Intel processor, it would be a surprise to everyone because the model just introduced was not a typical speed bumped upgrade but a more exhaustive redesign with PCI Express and DDR2.

Still, if the iMac does get an Intel processor in January, I suspect it will be a dual-core Yonah. I cannot imagine Apple incorporating any Pentium 4 processor, and that includes a Pentium D. A low-power Yonah at 2.16 GHz would be a virtual clock-for-clock replacement to the 2.10 GHz PPC G5, yet offer 2 cores and less heat dissipation, allowing it to run comfortably inside the iMac enclosure.

Finally:

From AppleInsider
Sources familiar with Apple's Intel plans now believe the Mac maker is striving to complete its transition to Intel chips in the by the fall of 2006, several months ahead of schedule.
If the transition to Intel is completed by fall of 2006, it is really good news for all Mactel buyers because it will accelerate the release of universal binaries. Developers will have good motivation to finish their transition as well.

However, this means that the new quad-core G5 will also be replaced by some badass configuration. Let's hope all the Mactel machines turn out to be seriously good upgrades from the old.

[Anik]

Thanks for your reply Hiroshige, but I remain as concerned as before. As ksz says below, and I realized and edited above, the likely processor choice for the i(ntel)Mac is the dual-core Yonah; as reported on this site (http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.computerbase.de%2Fnews%2Fhardware%2Fprozessoren%2Fintel%2F2005%2Faugust %2Fidf_benchmarks_sossaman_yonah%2F&langpair=de%7Cen&hl=en&safe=off&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&prev=%2Flanguage_tools) (English translation of German original courtesy of Google) we can expect the dual core 2.0 ghz Yonah to roughly equate to dual core Pentium-D 3.2 ghz in this particular benchmark.

Granted, this is a single projected benchmark, with a few assumptions in it, but it nevertheless reports a fairly major performance difference.

I'm not interested in resale value; when our computers have outlived the ability to perform the functions we need, we hand them down to family members with less demanding computing requirements (and sometimes fewer resources) and we certainly don't have the money to buy a computer because it might one day be a collector's item. What I need is the best possible computer I can get within a reasonable (six month) window, because I won't be able to just sell and upgrade any time for the next few years, unless something truly startling happens in my current finances.

Other information would be welcome.

Anik

[generik]

I seriously doubt it, it will throw their market segmentation (ala Steve's "Squeeze that very last drop of your blood") out the Window.

Why would anyone buy a PM if they can get dualies in a iBox?

If the iMac is the first to get an Intel processor, it would be a surprise to everyone because the model just introduced was not a typical speed bumped upgrade but a more exhaustive redesign with PCI Express and DDR2.

Still, if the iMac does get an Intel processor in January, I suspect it will be a dual-core Yonah. I cannot imagine Apple incorporating any Pentium 4 processor, and that includes a Pentium D. A low-power Yonah at 2.16 GHz would be a virtual clock-for-clock replacement to the 2.10 GHz PPC G5, yet offer 2 cores and less heat dissipation, allowing it to run comfortably inside the iMac enclosure.

Finally:


If the transition to Intel is completed by fall of 2006, it is really good news for all Mactel buyers because it will accelerate the release of universal binaries. Developers will have good motivation to finish their transition as well.

However, this means that the new quad-core G5 will also be replaced by some badass configuration. Let's hope all the Mactel machines turn out to be seriously good upgrades from the old.

[freddiecable]

agree! i just ordered 20" iMac 2.1 Ghz...

Does it seem odd to anyone else that they would update their two most recent products first? The *cough* "All-New Redesigned" *cough* iMac just came out!!! Though, the PowerBook is lacking, and hopefully will actually be "All-New and Redesigned" when it switches to Intel.

[Bye Bye Baby]

I should imagine that there are many issues that Apple needs to consider:


Marketing: Ultimately what they update first needs to be a 'best seller' so as to establish a foothold in the market for Intel-Mac.
Chip Architecture: what are the best processors available and what machjienes do they suit best. Latest Intel chips, not yet ready for shipping, will suit the smaller powerbooks etc and perhaps may come later.
Apple's Internal Situtaion: From a business organisationalo perspective I am sure that Apple would love to phase out its relationship with one of the other chip maker companies, just from a sheer managerial perspecitive. Having three suppliers, two of whom you are trying to make redundant is not good business.
Powerbooks and Mac mini really need to leave Motorola behind, so do ibooks. However, when Apple upgrades one line you can bet that the sales in other non updated lines willl nose dive. How many people do you expect do shell out a fortune for a computer only to know that it has a increasingly shortening tech-life.


Just a few thoughts:confused:

[ksz]

I seriously doubt it, it will throw their market segmentation (ala Steve's "Squeeze that very last drop of your blood") out the Window.

Why would anyone buy a PM if they can get dualies in a iBox?
If there's one thing we should have learned by now, it is that Apple's strategy is definitely not as predictable as we think it is!

If the iMac goes to an Intel processor, it will most likely incorporate Yonah. However, Yonah comes in both single core and dual core varieties, so Apple may well put a single core Yonah in the new iMac as you suggest. (I hope they put a dual core Yonah in the top end.)

PowerMacs are about expandability and power. They will sport faster buses and may move up to dual dual-cores across the board.

[ksz]

Marketing: Ultimately what they update first needs to be a 'best seller' so as to establish a foothold in the market for Intel-Mac.
Makes sense; same argument put forth by the AppleInsider article.

Chip Architecture: what are the best processors available and what machjienes do they suit best. Latest Intel chips, not yet ready for shipping, will suit the smaller powerbooks etc and perhaps may come later.
This might be interesting. I cannot imagine Apple using the highly superscalar Pentium 4 that manages to advertise high clock speed, but not high performance on a clock-for-clock comparison, and which dissipates considerable heat.

This leaves us with standard 90nm Pentium-M (dothan) and the new 65nm Yonah. I have no idea whether Intel has managed to ramp up yields of this processor particularly because 65nm process is challenging, but is already ramping up very nicely at various other fabs.

Incidentally, each process technology generation (180nm, 130nm, 90nm, 65nm, 45nm, 32nm, 22nm, ...) represents one-half the area of its predecessor. If you start with a 1micron x 1micron square and want to reduce the area by one-half, you multiply each side of the square by 0.707 (square root of 0.5) -- hence:

1000nm (1 micron)
707nm (0.7 micron)
500nm (half micron)
353nm
250nm (quarter micron)
176.77nm (rounded to 180nm)
127.27nm (rounded to 130nm)
90nm
63.64nm (rounded to 65nm)
45nm
31.82nm (rounded to 32nm)
22.5nm (rounded to 22nm)
15.91nm (rounded to 16nm) <<-- probably the end of classical scaling.


Apple's Internal Situtaion: From a business organisationalo perspective I am sure that Apple would love to phase out its relationship with one of the other chip maker companies, just from a sheer managerial perspecitive. Having three suppliers, two of whom you are trying to make redundant is not good business.
Another good point.

[Marx55]

The biggest issue with the Mactel transition is not the hardware. It is the availability of native Mactel software.

So, releasing Mactels ASAP would accelerate the release of native Mactel applications. And meanwhile you have Rosetta to run at decent speed legacy PowerPC code. No problem.

So, think different!

All Mactels are coming in 2006 or not later than January 2007.

[dontmatter]

January is just too far ahead of schedule. Even if Apple could, I don't think they would release that soon. Besides, just AFTER Christmas? That doesn't make any sense.

Just AFTER christmas is the best time to release stuff. Apple's a hot brand, people want it, and are going to get it for christmas sales. It's always a strong quarter. You can sell the same old thing, as long as it's still considered OK, at maximum profit margin. But as soon as christmas is done, wallets become tight... introducing a new product opens them up, gives you a major edge in the quarter when everybody else is hurting. Also, Apple has the power to make people buy on an update, whereas the cycles are far less important on PCs. Also, apple always has trouble ramping production up fast enough, so starting that time of year ensures that you still get the buzz, but most people don't buy until spring, when things are all up and running.

Remember last year? The mini, the shuffle, iwork, several other software bits, I believe?

Notice-there are sales, on almost everything, almost every time of year. But leading up to christmas? Full retail, because people are willing to pay it. As soon as it's done, sales go on, to boost numbers. Apple's working that.

It sounds like a great plan to me, though I'm not sure they should leave the iBook until after the imac-seems to me like their most popular portable, though consenus seems to be that the powerbook is.

[Marx55]

Besides, remember that Apple does not have to worry and invest on development of the logic board. Intel does it. Apple will use Intel logic boards on Mactels.

So apple just makes the case design, the OS and little more. That can speed up new Mac releses tremendously.

Expect to see new Mac models every few months once Mactel tales over on 2006. As in the PC-Windoze world.

A new bright future is ahead. And the possibility to dual or triple booting as Mac-Win-Linux is fantastic and will sell many many many Mactels around the world. I only hope that one could switch between OSes without rebooting the whole system. Much as Classic woks now, but a full native speed, of course.

[macorama]

January is just too far ahead of schedule. Even if Apple could, I don't think they would release that soon. Besides, just AFTER Christmas? That doesn't make any sense.
You mean like when the Mac Mini was announced? Just after christmas this year?

[Abstract]

So, Apple is about to launch Intel based hardware as early as January? Has anyone even thought that this may be academic if the OS is not ready yet? As of now, both are at 10.4.3 as far as features go, but spend even a second at the relevant forums and you can see that there is still a lot of work to do to get OS X86 ready for the market. iTunes is rumoured to have been ported to Intel, but apart from iPhoto, the rest of the iApps are still PPC, to say nothing of the rest of Apple's stable of applications.

iTunes and everything has been ported to Intel. iLife uses universal binaries, no? That means iTunes, iPhoto, and probably everything else.

In fact, OSX is also ready for Intel. Steve even said OSX was always designed with PPC and x86 in mind. He also used an Intel Mac during his keynote when he announced this.

[dontmatter]

The biggest issue with the Mactel transition is not the hardware. It is the availability of native Mactel software.

So, releasing Mactels ASAP would accelerate the release of native Mactel applications. And meanwhile you have Rosetta to run at decent speed legacy PowerPC code. No problem.

So, think different!

All Mactels are coming in 2006 or not later than January 2007.

Yes and no. New mactels will not have much software support, and so will loose sales of non-early adopter types (though, early adopters make up a large portion of the mac community). So people hoping for a whole new lineup early... not gonna happen. But two computers, so you can buy a desktop or a laptop from either maker, is perfect. Brings the software out sooner, gets a test audience for it, but doesn't increase risk. If all goes well, they accelerate it, and ship a lot of units early-if software is slow to move, there are bugs, and the quad powermacs turn out to still be faster, then they move as slow as they can, and make everyone happy.

But yeah, I say they're guarenteed to introduce earlier than they said they would, because if they didn't, people would know updates were coming, and sales would plummet, and then if the transition turns rough, you've got a major problem. But if people expect six months until intel, why not buy a PPC mac for christmas? And then pop out the intels early, and you avoid a major part of slowed sales from people waiting. So if there are roadblocks, they'll make their promise (also that reason, they want room for error), and if there aren't many, they'll beat it signifigantly, that's how it's planned.

[Hiroshige]

Anik,


The bottom line is, if a purchase is not going to make you happy, then don't do it.

[Bonte]

Why not keep the PPC in production?

Developers would be forced to support both architectures and maybe PPC has a surprise for us in a few years, why not support the PS3 to gain market share and create a buzz in the gaming industry.

[Henri Gaudier]

with how stingy Apple are at upgrades there about a year of upgrades left in the iMac if not more. We know there's a 2.7 G5 and we've had it a while so now behind the scenes or in a year, what will be available? So, even as it stands we can expect a small incremantal drift up to 2.7 in say .. 3 revisions? If not, why not give the iMac now the 2.3 & 2.7? If the line is finished let's have 'em and just watch those Christmas sales fly.

The real contender has to be the Power(Ha ha)Book. This thing has been stuck in the mud for 2 years.

[ksz]

Why not keep the PPC in production?
For how much longer?

It becomes extremely cost-ineffective to support 2 processor architectures with two different roadmaps for next-generation features, power dissipation, and performance, and design and debug 2 motherboards and 2 chipsets for every model, and maintain supplier relationships with 2 different vendors, coordinate the release dates of nextgen Intel and PPC so as not to alienate the PPC-Mac buyers nor the Intel-Mac buyers, etc.

Developers would be forced to support both architectures and maybe PPC has a surprise for us in a few years, why not support the PS3 to gain market share and create a buzz in the gaming industry.
One has to cut their losses and move on. You have to trim and focus. Change is always hard, but change passes and everyone moves on.

[shadowmoses]

I dont know why apple are so keen to keep updating the iMac, it seems to be updated far more than any other mac.....Maybe becuase they see it as a route to encourage switchers??

Shadow

[yoak]

I don´t see the point (as many on this board do) for Apple to keep upgrading their computers with PPC chips AFTER they have started the switch to Intel.

Why would you put a G5 2.7 in the iMac if you have chips provided buy Intel available?

Do they have huge stocks of PPC chips sitting around?
Seems unlikley as they have known of the switch for a god while now

[rdowns]

Apple exists to grow shareholder value. They have done a remarkable job doing this over the past 2+ years with their stock going from $22.50 to $61.50 ($123.00 adjusted for the stock split) since 9/2003. This has been fueled not only by explosive iPod sales but record Mac sales. (about 700,000-800,00 a quarter for 2002-2004 and then exploding to well over a million for all of 2005) These record Mac sales have occurred with many glitches (no iMac for sale as the G5 is delayed, anemic PM updates, anemic PB updates) and with knowledge of the Intel transition for over 6 months.

Their stock is still rising nicely with expectations of continuing record iPod sales and increased Mac sales. What to do after Christmas? The business story then will be the Intel transition. Apple needs to move as quick as they can or their stock may tumble as huge profits are taken by long holders.

Apple announces results on or about January 15th. Excellent numbers are expected for the xmas selling season. Can you imagine the buzz if the beginning of the Intel transition were to be announced a week or so before the results?

From the business side of the equation, I think significant Intel related announcements will happen in January. Apple is bold, why not do it in your best selling lines (iMac and PB)? Recall the discontinuance of the iPod mini, the best selling one and its replacement with the nano. Apple needs to be bold in their transition. Doing the Mac mini first would be a poor business move. Would say to me that we don't have much faith in our early transition and we're doing it on a low risk product.

[sancgreal]

Maybe that they'll just add one to the iMac line. hmmm how about an iMac 30" mactel!

or maybe create a new set of computers: the "Mactel family"
consisting of a new mactel laptop (the 13" widescreen ibook/powerbook), mactel iMac (30" iMac)

it'd be cool to have black versions of the iBooks too like the new iPods :)

Thinner laptops? maybe that comes later :(

[bigandy]

I can see them dropping the bomb of a dual core intel powered iMac in January, surpassing the power of most peecee desktops, just so they can give everyone the finger.

I can also see the intel PowerBook arriving, people going "ok we really needed that, the powerbook was getting stale", and then thinking "well what are we going to run on it?".

that's when Apple mention the intel optomised versions of FCP, Motion, DVDSP, iLife '06, and then bring on stage a few "industry colleagues", announcing intel versions of MS Office for Mac, Macromedia products, and maybe a suprise Photoshop announcement, a la "there won't be an ipod video".

If they announced intel versions of Final Cut Studio, i'd probably shoot out and buy one pretty quickly, as FCP even faster would be great, and Motion can always do with more power...

[shanmui1]

Hey my first post here.

What about the GPU? If the new intel iMac is coming out in january, any chance for something midway decent like x800? If they put that in there I will buy at once!

[Will Cheyney]

I believe that all G4 models will be replaced first with Intel chips. The G4 is what, a 6-year old processor.
With the iMac and PowerMac already having faster and more capable chipsets, I imagine these will be updated after.

The recent PowerBook updates were only slight - much like the revision before that. We got what... brighter screens? Not much of an update really, more of a short-sighted encouragement to make people desire a new one.

The iMac however was more significantly updated. With the introduction of a thinner form-factor, integrated iSight and 'Media Centre' approach, Apple wouldn't have R&D'd that much for only 2 months worth of sales.

My betting on the Intel-front is on a 'Media Centre' (Front Row and remote Mac Mini and new re-styled PowerBooks - both with Intel chips, obviously.

[splintah]

imagine

a 13" widescreen powerbook
with a dualcore processor
25% thiner than current 12"

maybe with upgradeable interchangeable pci-express graphics chip

and wasnt there some buzz that you can run 2 os on those dualcore chips simultaniously

so i could switch to win for a prog which isnt available for intelOSX yet like switching programs with expose
because osx an win run simultaniously

i do not want to use win
but for me as a 3d artist there are a lot of progs not available for the mac
and at the beginning there would be a lot of progs not yet available for the intelOSX

so overall
i think thats gonna be great

[denial]

imagine

a 13" widescreen powerbook
with a dualcore processor
25% thiner than current 12"

maybe with upgradeable interchangeable pci-express graphics chip

and wasnt there some buzz that you can run 2 os on those dualcore chips simultaniously

so i could switch to win for a prog which isnt available for intelOSX yet like switching programs with expose
because osx an win run simultaniously

i do not want to use win
but for me as a 3d artist there are a lot of progs not available for the mac
and at the beginning there would be a lot of progs not yet available for the intelOSX

so overall
i think thats gonna be great


It all sounds great. If this was announced I would RUN down to the Apple store and purchase.

[ksz]

Hey my first post here.

What about the GPU? If the new intel iMac is coming out in january, any chance for something midway decent like x800? If they put that in there I will buy at once!
Me too. Apple could move to Intel with a big splash, but from the AppleInsider article it appears that no new features will appear, only a new processor. I hope that is not the case and that Apple does introduce at least one new iMac which gives a good jolt to the system...e.g. dual core Yonah, X800 Pro, and SATA-II.

AppleInsider
According to sources familiar with Apple's plans, the first Intel iMac won't usher in a slew of new bells and whistles, and instead will be based largely on the design and feature set of the current iMac. In fact, recent rumblings reveal that Apple will reuse the 'media center' iMac enclosure introduced at last month's special event in San Jose, Calif.

[lopresmb]

Woah! Time to sell my POS powerbook!

The laptop which can't even play Battlestar Galactica DVD without pops and stutters!
I'll give you $5 to take the trouble off your hands;)

[oober_freak]

Anyone else look at this newbiees other posts...not one positive thing, all bashing...listen, Bill, you mind if I call you Bill? No? Ok, Mr. Prince of Darkness, you mind if I call you Mr. Prince of Darkness? No? Ok, well, anywho...SHUSH!


But, he has a valid point.

I agree the laptops will benefit with the pentium M processors in them. But how would apple explain going back to 32-bit processors with Yonah for the iMacs? Or are they getting the Meroms early? :p

If they're going to put Yonahs on the iMac I guess they'll have to explain real hard why they went back to 32 bit from the 64 bit G5s

Also, the iMac will be one of the very few if not the only desktop computer using pentium M processors sold commercially.

[rockthecasbah]

Just AFTER christmas is the best time to release stuff. Apple's a hot brand, people want it, and are going to get it for christmas sales. It's always a strong quarter. You can sell the same old thing, as long as it's still considered OK, at maximum profit margin. But as soon as christmas is done, wallets become tight... introducing a new product opens them up, gives you a major edge in the quarter when everybody else is hurting. Also, Apple has the power to make people buy on an update, whereas the cycles are far less important on PCs. Also, apple always has trouble ramping production up fast enough, so starting that time of year ensures that you still get the buzz, but most people don't buy until spring, when things are all up and running.

Remember last year? The mini, the shuffle, iwork, several other software bits, I believe?

Notice-there are sales, on almost everything, almost every time of year. But leading up to christmas? Full retail, because people are willing to pay it. As soon as it's done, sales go on, to boost numbers. Apple's working that.

It sounds like a great plan to me, though I'm not sure they should leave the iBook until after the imac-seems to me like their most popular portable, though consenus seems to be that the powerbook is.

Good points, but also with people not knowing of eminent updates, they will buy up the current stocks of the present machines, helping Apple to have less old-revisions in stock when the new machines are announced.

[lopresmb]

woohoo, the massive rumermill has started and will be in full swing until Jan '06 (and longer assuming that we are going to see a steady stream of macs coming out). I tell you what, 2006 is going to be a fun year no matter how you look at it. We are going to see entirely new product lines launches, fastest Macs ever built, and who knows what else. :D

All grumbling and speculation about specs and release order aside, I'm just looking forwars to what Apple is going to do. It ought to be a really cool show to watch, for quite a while.

P.S. Anyone with a iSight iMac - check this out..
--Apparently the Photobooth App is the FIRST officially released INTEL AND POWERPC compiled program. Just go to get info about that app and apparently it will tell you that it was created using a universay bianary and able to run natively on both systems. I thought this was pretty dag on cool.....;)

[ksz]

...But how would apple explain going back to 32-bit processors with Yonah for the iMacs? Or are they getting the Meroms early? :p

If they're going to put Yonahs on the iMac I guess they'll have to explain real hard why they went back to 32 bit from the 64 bit G5s
The iMac barely gets up to 4GB physical memory and is not meant for 64-bit applications that require direct access to more than 2^32 bytes (4GB) of physical memory. Putting a 32-bit Yonah in an iMac is not a downgrade at all.

Also, the iMac will be one of the very few if not the only desktop computer using pentium M processors sold commercially.
There is nothing wrong with using a mobile processor in a desktop. The cramped enclosure of the iMac requires a cool-running processor. Yonah can give the iMac just what it needs: High compute-power with low electric-power -- i.e. good performance per watt.

[MacEyeDoc]

oh, you poor souls clinching your brand new Powerbooks. have you already forgotten the TITANIUM POWERBOOK HISTORY? DANG! I got my first Mac, a super-loaded GHz Tibook, in November of 2003, literally days after they were announced. and that was actually a reasonable upgrade--you know, they sped up the processor some 'n' stuff.

NOT TWO MONTHS LATER.... MWSF.. oh, gee, 12 and 17 inch aluminum powerbooks! now granted, it was a good long while before the 15 inch one saw the light of day, but it's not at all outside the realm of possibility that they would do something crazy like update the powerbooks a lot sooner than you think... and I would be thoroughly unsurprised if it was the 12 inch powerbook that saw one of the first MacIntel conversions--It would be their coolest laptop by far if it were widescreen and fast, and 1 inch thin like the other ones.

Not that I would give any credence to this article, which I regard as mere speculation by someone who's about as in-the-know as 75% of the people that read MacRumors, but still, just because the powerbooks were recently updated doesn't mean that they won't be among the first to see the new Intel processors. And rightfully so, because they're really hurting badly on performance, and laptops are probably the most important line of computers to have be attractive, especially when you're trying to woo a halo effect out of a bunch of iPod junkies. How would it be if they upgraded the iBook first? it's hard enough to distinguish those two lines as it is!

Ed: and yes, gammamonk, they announced those AlBooks in January, just a few weeks after Christmas...

He's right, gammamonk - Apple will have no qualms about updated something in January - they've done it before.

[djdarlek]

NOT TWO MONTHS LATER.... MWSF.. oh, gee, 12 and 17 inch aluminum powerbooks! now granted, it was a good long while before the 15 inch one saw the light of day, but it's not at all outside the realm of possibility that they would do something crazy like update the powerbooks a lot sooner than you think...

Like killing off one of the world's fastest selling music players in favour of a completely redesigned model? [ipod mini - nano anyone?]

[bjohn]

As a first generation iMac G5 owner, it is obvious to me the reasoning (other than even more obvious business and marketing ones) as to why iMacs are being chosen as one of the first intel updates- Heat and Noise. There has been a common thread (no pun intended!) throughout the run of the iMacs about heat and noise concerns on Apple's own support site. Now there are some complaints about the new iSight, although there have been major improvements in that area since my first generation model- especially with the new design of Gen. C. Still, since Apple first announced a "whisper quiet" iMac, many people expect near silence- and even the iSights do not deliver to that degree. What better way to reach closer to that goal than new, cooler running intel processors that do not require as much cooling from noisy fans- yet deliver more power?

[Chundles]

I love this time of year:

My birthday, end of november.
Christmas, end of December almost one month to the day since my birthday
and then one month later, iChristmas in January.

S'great!!!

Love it.

[Bear]

I can see 2 good reasos for Apple to use the same case as the iMac G5 (iSight):

1) Designing new cases and preparing the production lines cost money.

2) Imagine a row of iMacs at MacWorld. Some are Intel based and some are PowerPC based. Walk up to an iMac and play with it - does it really matter which processor it has in it?

[sjo]

ok, now i am truly pissed off!
if they do introduce the mentioned products, when will they ship them?

i was about to get a new powerbook because my titanium powerbook is becoming unbearably slow and I simply refuse to upgrade it in any way, what am I supposed to do?:confused: :confused: :confused:

well depends of what you use your powerbook for. if it's for photoshop your probly better off buying one of the last g4 powerbook models, it'll be a while before adobe releases native mactel versions of their software. that could still take a year or even more, cs4 could realistically be mactel, cs3 not.

if you're using your computer for say ms office stuff waiting might be an option, using those with rosetta may be feasible, though not necessarily any faster than on older powerbook!

[generik]

well depends of what you use your powerbook for. if it's for photoshop your probly better off buying one of the last g4 powerbook models, it'll be a while before adobe releases native mactel versions of their software. that could still take a year or even more, cs4 could realistically be mactel, cs3 not.

if you're using your computer for say ms office stuff waiting might be an option, using those with rosetta may be feasible, though not necessarily any faster than on older powerbook!

Using rosetta might incur a penalty but in the long run it is still a better deal. Besides how bad can it be? 50% penalty?

Hey, Yonah is dual core.. assuming a 50% increase in system performance it is ONLY 25% slower to eat that penalty.

Of course in reality it is not just 50% faster, nor is rosetta that pathetic.. it is going to fly.

[jdechko]

Sweet... the sooner the better. Powerbook specs are less than spectacular at this point so I can't see Steve putting off their release if they are truly ready just because he said June 06.

As for the iMac, I'm not so sure that they really need another update so soon after the last one. I know that the PB really needs it, and probably the mini next. Maybe they're having more problems with the mini... it seems like the iMac, PowerMac and iBook are all pretty decent at this point, so they just randomly decided what to update next and the iMac got chosen.

[Bear]

Using rosetta might incur a penalty but in the long run it is still a better deal. Besides how bad can it be? 50% penalty?
...For Photoshop? It could be that bad. Remember Rosetta emulates a G3, so Photshop under Rosetta will not have acess to SIMD (AltiVec on G4, G5) type instructions. Depending on what you use Photoshop for, this could be rather noticeable.

On the Intel side of things, a Pentium II and a Pentium III with the same bus, clock speeds and cache size, the PIII was ~40% faster for Photoshop due to the use of SIMD instructions.

So to sum it up, Photoshop under Rosetta has two things going against it - no SIMD and it's emulated.

[Bear]

Sweet... the sooner the better. Powerbook specs are less than spectacular at this point so I can't see Steve putting off their release if they are truly ready just because he said June 06.
...Actually Steve did not say in June, he said by June 2006.

I do not think Apple will rush anything out the door before it is ready. They just need one of the Intel Macs ready to ship in the first half of 2006 to meet the expectations that Steve Jobs has set.

[jdechko]

it'll be a while before adobe releases native mactel versions of their software. that could still take a year or even more, cs4 could realistically be mactel, cs3 not.

One of the good things, though, is that Apple and Adobe are business partners so to speak... Adobe knows that there is a good deal of its user-base who are also Mac users (the design studios, etc). In my opinion, there isn't much stopping Adobe from re-compiling a universal binary "patch" for all current CS2 users that allows CS2 to run natively under intel. All of the support files (brushes, filters, etc) are all the exact same anyway, right? Plus, for Mac CS1 users, they could do a special "last chance" upgrade price to get them from PPC-CS1 to intel CS2.

It's just a thought, and obviously I am assuming that Adobe pretty much already has a universal binary pretty close to completion. Apple stands to make money from customers not being afraid to switch: CS2 runs natively without Rosetta. Adobe offers a one-time special "cross-platform" upgrade from PPC-CS1 to Intel-CS2 and doesnt have to wait for CS3.

[Will Cheyney]

Anyone with a iSight iMac - check this out..[/B]
--Apparently the Photobooth App is the FIRST officially released INTEL AND POWERPC compiled program. Just go to get info about that app and apparently it will tell you that it was created using a universay bianary and able to run natively on both systems. I thought this was pretty dag on cool.....;)
Hahaha! Awesome.

[Dont Hurt Me]

Its good news, iMac and Powerbook have gone nowhere performance wise and who wants to replace their computer with one that offers nothing more? Its why Apple threw in everything but the kitchen sink. If you would have told me 5 years ago my quicksilver would still be current I would have called you a liar but here we are. This is cool, bring on the Intel and as far as PPC goes R.I.P. It will be nice to again have computers moving forward in performance instead of updates with no cpu updates. iMac's .1 ghz increase was a joke as was Powerbooks no increase.

[stuepfnick]

The PowerPC G5 is a top-of-the-line CPU and every Mac application is available for PPC-CPUs.

It would be horrible to be only able to buy Intel-based iMacs, they won't benefit from Intel-CPUs, the iMacs could be upgraded to Dual-Core-G5s, I am sure, then I would buy one, but no Intel crap (yet).

I want a powerful PPC-Mac to wait some years, until there is enough software for the Intel-Crap, although the Powermac is too expensive to me. Maybe if later in 2006 we get Dual-Core iMacs and Quad-Powermacs accross the line, I'll get a new Mac.

What do you want to do with Intel-Macs early 2006? Run windows on it? Why not buy a PC? You can do the same with it.
Even in mid-2006 there won't be much Intel-OS X Software available, so this makes no sense.

And as some of you pointed out, the G5 is a pretty powerful processor and it's up to date, so there an Intel-CPU makes no sense.

Apple has to wait until Mid of 2007 to switch the Powermacs to Intel. They'll have to wait until Intel has some CPUs to offer which will offer at least the same power as the Dual-Core-G5s and that won't be until Mid of 2007.

And guess what, in Mid of 2007 we will also get High-Volume productions of very-low-power PPC-CPUs from PA Semi.
There will be a Dual-Core PPC Chip with Altivec, S-ATA II, PCIe, and all the fine stuff in one processor. It will use 13 Watt @ 2 Ghz. They start shipping in late 2006. In 2007 there will be Single and Quad Core types of this CPU as well.

Apple is really doing a big mistake here. Just to get more powerful Powerbooks a half year earlier, all the effort. And then it even can't be as powerful as future PPC-Chips. It will hard for Apple to explain all the downgrades and less Perormance-per-Watt compared to PA Semi CPUs.

The badest thing is all the effort of all the companies who need to change their apps to Intel code. Many will jump of, there won't be any more Classic. So no old games, no old Apps.
No one will redo all the old stuff for Intel CPUs. Many Developers will jump off. Many will offer their Windows Version only, they'll tell us: Just boot into Windows to use our Apps. The same will happen to games.
Also we can't use any of the Apps that need a G4/G5 at least, Rosetta won't run them.

And have fun with your Intel Macs in early 2006 using everything with Rosetta! So you are back at the speed of early G4s. Really a big step forward. :p

I wish Apple will only offer one Intel-based Mac mini and keep everything else at PowerPC.
Yes, we will have to wait another 4-8 months to get fast, state-of-the-art powerbooks, but I think it's worth the waiting.

So we won't need Rosetta, have the power to blow away all the Intel stuff again. (the only real competition to the G5 comes from AMD)
We can use ALL of our Apps natively, can continue to use Altivec, will get Altivec 2 (VERY powerful) in 2007, can continue to use ALL our classic and G4 software, etc.
Also we will get great games coming from the PS3, XBox360 and the new Nintendo. They ALL use PPC now and they all have ALTIVEC. Also the PS3 has some Vector-processors, that work pretty similar to Altivec. AND there will be Auto-Vectorisation in the near future, as well a broad range of experienced vector-code programmers (coming from the consoles). So the PPC-future looks VERY, VERY NICE.

The only disadvantage of not using Intel-CPUs in Macs would be some months more waiting for a powerful Powerbook and not being able to use windows on our Macs. But who wants this? Just buy a cheap PC to use this crap! :cool:

In my opinion it is the absolutely wrong time to switch to Intel. I could understand it, in the end times of the G4 Powermacs, if they did it INSTEAD of the G5.
But now we have the G5 and we will get VERY STRONG and LOW POWER PPC-CPUs soon from PA Semi. A Dual-Core 2 Ghz chips will utilize 13 Watt (compared to 130 Watt of a Dual Core Pentium).

Also Intels Dual-Core CPUs use a very weak design. The cores have to comunicate over the FSB, that slows down everything very much. The Dual-Core G5 has a Backbridge, over which both cores can talk to each other directly, speeding things up.

Also Steve Jobs argument of IBM, that they don't offer 3 Ghz chips yet is big nonsense. If they did go with Intel, Steve would tell us: In late 2004 we will have CPUs reaching 5 Ghz. (as Intels roadmap was saying).

So it won't be any difference. And the Quad 2.5 Ghz is more powerfull than any Dual 3 Ghz could be!
I just hope, ALL Powermacs (or at least the middle-one) will become Quad too.

I hope I can afford some Dual-Core iMac or Dual/Quad Powermac, before the Intel Crap comes. So I can stay with it as long as possible. I would love to run the Unreal-Engine3 on a Quad-Core Powermac. :rolleyes:
Also I hope there will be some alternative OS, that works with PPC, with a broad User base. If yes, I am sure, I will switch. I am very excited about the cool chips from PA Semi, coming late 2006 and 2007.

Greetings,
Stefab

[zap2]

good i can get my iBook now and not worry(or worry less)

and my mom's PB she needs now

[stuepfnick]

btw, have fun buying ALL the software upgrades for Intel-native apps. I personally can't afford the switch, because all the new software costs much more than a new Mac. (and working with Rosetta is not worth it. So it's better to just stay with PPC for the moment)

[Hattig]

I'm in two minds about this.

One mind is 'yeah, right, AI is being taken for a ride here, the iMac G5 is plenty competitive at the moment, a bump to a single 2.3GHz G5 in January would be all it'd need until Merom comes out'. I can see the Mac Mini and the iBook getting Intelified early next year of course, the G4 has nowhere to go unless Freescale somehow miraculously create 2GHz 7448s in quantity, and that'd only hold off the inevitable for a few months.

I've reassessed my Powerbook won't go Intel until 2007 stance. It'd be killed if it remained a single-core G4 throughout 2006 because all the Intel based laptops would have dual-core Yonahs. Quite simply the only choice Apple has is to go dual-core, and Yonah is the only viable option in early 2006. Dual-core G4 probably won't be available in quantity until the end of 2006. Quite possibly two G4s could be used, but at considerable cost and the shared POS FSB wouldn't really make it work well.

So from a marketing point of view, PowerBook will go dual-core Yonah as soon as Intel can provide them to Apple. Possibly even before the iBook goes Intel - the pressure for dual-core will be in the medium-to-high-end of the market. iBook will hopefully get a dual-core 1.66GHz Yonah however, the PowerBook will get dual-core 1.83GHz, 2GHz and 2.16GHz (13", 15", 17"). The 13" might be restricted to LV Yonah however, that's dual-core 1.5GHz.

But the iMac? It's decent already, it uses a G5, it's got up to date components. Surely it can wait for Merom? Or maybe Intel has told Apple that Merom is delayed (Intel has had terrible issues with delays and cancellations this year, but I don't think they had extended to Merom) and Apple is just going to use Yonah as it will be electrically compatible.

As long as Apple don't use anything from the awful Pentium 4 family, I'll be reasonably happy. Even with G3-level performance (albeit a fast G3 at around 70% the speed of the intel processor) the dual-core aspect should make up for some of the altivec losses. However I do think that Apple should at least have all their applications intel-native by release, no Rosetta for them.

[Photorun]

Need I remind everyone on this thread we're talking about AppleInsider.com... aka "used to be relevant in 1998 and even then maybe not." They are, in fact right... about 3% of the time. Who can forget their fanciful predictions of the next generation of quad G4 processors or "G5 Powerbooks right around the corner" (um, right) or their always usually laughably wrong specs and price points that even a fanboy would find hard to swallow.

The last time AppleInsider actually got something considerable that was right, and mind you, I check them all (mosr, appleinsider, thinksecret, etc.) was almost two days before the newer style, post toilet-seat looking, iBook they predicted it. Okay... that was ONE occasion, but again, it was only two days prior.

What makes this prediction like the iBook? Nothing. They're pulling this one out of their arse.

Move along people, nothing to see here.

[takilu]

Hello, i need an opinion yours. I am a student of multimedia design (just finishing the course) and i need to buy a laptop.

Do you find a good purchase, if i buy a PB of 15"? or it is better i wait for intel?

I use programs like photoshop, flash, dreamweaver, illustrator, after effects and some (not much) maya.

Please help me, i´m confuse about this....

[adamfilip]

For Photoshop? It could be that bad. Remember Rosetta emulates a G3, so Photshop under Rosetta will not have acess to SIMD (AltiVec on G4, G5) type instructions. Depending on what you use Photoshop for, this could be rather noticeable.

On the Intel side of things, a Pentium II and a Pentium III with the same bus, clock speeds and cache size, the PIII was ~40% faster for Photoshop due to the use of SIMD instructions.

So to sum it up, Photoshop under Rosetta has two things going against it - no SIMD and it's emulated.

what does it matter if it emulates with no Alivec SIMD , since the Intel stuff cant do it anyways

[iMeowbot]

Do you find a good purchase, if i buy a PB of 15"? or it is better i wait for intel?

I use programs like photoshop, flash, dreamweaver, illustrator, after effects and some (not much) maya.
Well, Photoshop and Illustrator kind of point at going with PowerPC in the near term. Adobe aren't planning to have their stuff ported until closer to 2007.

[ksz]

Oh no, where to begin??

The PowerPC G5 is a top-of-the-line CPU and every Mac application is available for PPC-CPUs.

It would be horrible to be only able to buy Intel-based iMacs, they won't benefit from Intel-CPUs, the iMacs could be upgraded to Dual-Core-G5s, I am sure, then I would buy one, but no Intel crap (yet).
You are really afraid of change. Why? Intel-based Macs may well benefit greatly compared with the anemic pace of development the PPC has had. The time for the PPC is over. Apple gave the PPC consortium more than enough time and they failed to deliver new generation processors quickly and with high performance per watt.

I want a powerful PPC-Mac to wait some years, until there is enough software for the Intel-Crap, although the Powermac is too expensive to me. Maybe if later in 2006 we get Dual-Core iMacs and Quad-Powermacs accross the line, I'll get a new Mac.
Rosetta will allow you to run PPC binaries on an Intel Mac. Universal binaries do, however, need to be released quickly by software developers. I do not want to use Rosetta for more than 1 year.

What do you want to do with Intel-Macs early 2006? Run windows on it? Why not buy a PC? You can do the same with it.
R O S E T T A.

Even in mid-2006 there won't be much Intel-OS X Software available, so this makes no sense.
R O S E T T A.

And as some of you pointed out, the G5 is a pretty powerful processor and it's up to date, so there an Intel-CPU makes no sense.
If you are happy with 0.1 GHz upgrades to the PPC every 6 months, be our guest.

Apple has to wait until Mid of 2007 to switch the Powermacs to Intel. They'll have to wait until Intel has some CPUs to offer which will offer at least the same power as the Dual-Core-G5s and that won't be until Mid of 2007.
Why does Apple have to wait until mid 2007? Who enacted that law? According to AppleInsider's latest article which you haven't read, Apple may complete the transition by Fall of 2006 -- yes, Fall of next year. That would include the PowerMacs.

And guess what, in Mid of 2007 we will also get High-Volume productions of very-low-power PPC-CPUs from PA Semi.
This seems like a sinking ship. It's the right move for Apple to jump ship.

There will be a Dual-Core PPC Chip with Altivec, S-ATA II, PCIe, and all the fine stuff in one processor. It will use 13 Watt @ 2 Ghz. They start shipping in late 2006. In 2007 there will be Single and Quad Core types of this CPU as well.
Promises promises. Apple has been the unfortunate victim of promises. They need a far more confident, capable, and aggressive supplier. Intel is that supplier.

Apple is really doing a big mistake here. Just to get more powerful Powerbooks a half year earlier, all the effort. And then it even can't be as powerful as future PPC-Chips. It will hard for Apple to explain all the downgrades and less Perormance-per-Watt compared to PA Semi CPUs.
What future PPC chips? You are comparing vaporware with something that exists now and will continue to exist for a long time. Apple cannot partner with an unknown designhouse that probably has no fabs of its own and operates like a small company. Do you know who these guys are?

The badest thing is all the effort of all the companies who need to change their apps to Intel code. Many will jump of, there won't be any more Classic. So no old games, no old Apps.
In the best case you just click a checkbox that says "Intel Binary" and rebuild your app. That's it. In other cases there's more work, but not on the scale of a rewrite.

No one will redo all the old stuff for Intel CPUs. Many Developers will jump off. Many will offer their Windows Version only, they'll tell us: Just boot into Windows to use our Apps. The same will happen to games.
Not really. An OS is more than the processor on which it runs. Different processor architectures have provided a wider rift between OSs, but even if we bridge the processor gulf, the OSs are not the same. Linux exists for Intel and it's doing very well.

Also we can't use any of the Apps that need a G4/G5 at least, Rosetta won't run them.
These might be among the first to go native.

And have fun with your Intel Macs in early 2006 using everything with Rosetta! So you are back at the speed of early G4s. Really a big step forward. :p
Remains to be seen.

I wish Apple will only offer one Intel-based Mac mini and keep everything else at PowerPC.
Yes, we will have to wait another 4-8 months to get fast, state-of-the-art powerbooks, but I think it's worth the waiting.
It's better to make the transition quickly and get it over with so comments like yours go away that much faster. ;)

So we won't need Rosetta, have the power to blow away all the Intel stuff again. (the only real competition to the G5 comes from AMD)
We can use ALL of our Apps natively, can continue to use Altivec, will get Altivec 2 (VERY powerful) in 2007, can continue to use ALL our classic and G4 software, etc.
You're again banking on promises and thinking that some unknown small player will be able to solve all the yield and design problems that IBM and Motorola/Freescale could not solve. :rolleyes:

Also we will get great games coming from the PS3, XBox360 and the new Nintendo. They ALL use PPC now and they all have ALTIVEC. Also the PS3 has some Vector-processors, that work pretty similar to Altivec. AND there will be Auto-Vectorisation in the near future, as well a broad range of experienced vector-code programmers (coming from the consoles). So the PPC-future looks VERY, VERY NICE.
Not true. The CELL processor cores are not designed for general purpose computing and perform less efficiently for those tasks. It looks like performance of the XBOX 360 will be underwhelming -- it's already beginning to disappoint some people (check the Games section of Macrumors). Playstation 3 might provide more oomph, but it remains to be seen.

The only disadvantage of not using Intel-CPUs in Macs would be some months more waiting for a powerful Powerbook and not being able to use windows on our Macs. But who wants this? Just buy a cheap PC to use this crap! :cool:
Don't think so. Many of your premises are unfounded, so many of your conclusions are unwarranted.

In my opinion it is the absolutely wrong time to switch to Intel. I could understand it, in the end times of the G4 Powermacs, if they did it INSTEAD of the G5.

But now we have the G5 and we will get VERY STRONG and LOW POWER PPC-CPUs soon from PA Semi. A Dual-Core 2 Ghz chips will utilize 13 Watt (compared to 130 Watt of a Dual Core Pentium).

Also Intels Dual-Core CPUs use a very weak design. The cores have to comunicate over the FSB, that slows down everything very much. The Dual-Core G5 has a Backbridge, over which both cores can talk to each other directly, speeding things up.

Also Steve Jobs argument of IBM, that they don't offer 3 Ghz chips yet is big nonsense. If they did go with Intel, Steve would tell us: In late 2004 we will have CPUs reaching 5 Ghz. (as Intels roadmap was saying).

So it won't be any difference. And the Quad 2.5 Ghz is more powerfull than any Dual 3 Ghz could be!
I just hope, ALL Powermacs (or at least the middle-one) will become Quad too.

I hope I can afford some Dual-Core iMac or Dual/Quad Powermac, before the Intel Crap comes. So I can stay with it as long as possible. I would love to run the Unreal-Engine3 on a Quad-Core Powermac. :rolleyes:
Also I hope there will be some alternative OS, that works with PPC, with a broad User base. If yes, I am sure, I will switch. I am very excited about the cool chips from PA Semi, coming late 2006 and 2007.

Greetings,
Stefab
PA Semi is a startup company in Santa Clara backed by venture capitalists. They've been in business for 2 years. You want Apple to bank its future on this? For all we know, PA Semi might become another Transmeta.

http://www.pasemi.com/about/index.html

And I think this (http://www.pasemi.com/about/cake.html) is pretty cute!

[Hattig]

what does it matter if it emulates with no Alivec SIMD , since the Intel stuff cant do it anyways

The Intel FPU (especially on the Pentium M chips) is pretty poor. Yonah and Merom will have improved FPUs apparently.

However they do have SSE2, which is a poor-mans Altivec. However it does significantly improve performance.

Unless Rosetta is enhanced to also translate Altivec instructions into SSE/SSE2/SSE3/emulated instructions, then you really are in the worst of both worlds - the standard floating point path.

[Hattig]

PA Semi is a startup company in Santa Clara backed by venture capitalists. They've been in business for 2 years. You want Apple to bank its future on this? For all we know, PA Semi might become another Transmeta.

http://www.pasemi.com/about/index.html

I generally agree with everything you've said.

Regarding PA Semi, the integer performance is quite poor - ~1100 SPEC_int per core. The floating point is very good however at ~2300 SPEC_fp per core. I don't think it'd make a great 2007 Mac processor unless the integer performance was significantly tweaked. Don't get me wrong, it would make a pretty good Mac processor, and the integration would remove a lot of the chipset woes that Apple has had in the PowerPC arena.

I do, however, have a lot of confidence in the people who are running PA Semi, and they will deliver what they have said they will deliver. They'll probably deliver it on time as well. Maybe come 2010 they'll be leading the entire market performance-wise and it'll be time for Apple to go back to PowerPC - which they'll be able to do much quicker than Windows Vista will be ported to PowerPC. However the distant future is pointless to speculate on.

[jbembe]

I hope this is true. If things work out at my job, I could get a new laptop when this happens. They just put wireless for my entire building. That would simply be exceptional!!:cool:

[hyperpasta]

My entirely useless predicitions:

The Powerbook will be the sexiest compuer Apple has shipped. Thin, shiny, and dual-core! The 12" version WILL be dropped, and it WILL have an iSight.

The Mac mini will be slightly redesigned, with a thin white plastic stripe through the lower half of the brushed metal shell. While it looks like decoration, it houses an IR receiver for Front Row, which is included.

New Cinema displays will come out at some point with built-in iSights and maybe swiveling.

The iMac will ship later on, maybe around WWDC. The case will get slimmer and trimmer, and maybe get Dual-Core chips. I expect a 17" model for educational institutions only (replacing the current eMac), a 20" model for $1399, and a 23" model for $1699. If the Cinema Displays get swiveling, so will the iMac.

The PowerMacs will ship in fall or winter, using the new Conroe (?) chip.

Oh yeah, and Leopard will ship the day before Vista.

[ksz]

I do, however, have a lot of confidence in the people who are running PA Semi, and they will deliver what they have said they will deliver. They'll probably deliver it on time as well. Maybe come 2010 they'll be leading the entire market performance-wise and it'll be time for Apple to go back to PowerPC - which they'll be able to do much quicker than Windows Vista will be ported to PowerPC. However the distant future is pointless to speculate on.
Their executive team appears to have very good credentials, but so did the Transmeta team. Transmeta's goal was to produce high performance processors at very low wattage. Unfortunately, the Crusoe failed to live up to its performance promises.

I wish PA Semi every success, but it's too early and completely imprudent for a company with Apple's requirements to bank its future on a 2-year old startup.

[tom_s]

Steve Jobs said that Apple started to develop the new (current) iMac the day the older ones were announced (one year before).
Wouldn't that mean that they need about a year for the next iMac, too (not only 3 month)?

IMO, the first MacIntels will be the minis and PBs.

[fklehman]

After the latest PB upgrade debacle (the much-anticipated, unimpressive October 2005 PowerBook Speed Dump), I don't believe anything anyone says about PB updates anymore, least of all AppleInsider. Now MacOSRumors, on the other hand...that's about the only reliable source out there...:D

[ksz]

Steve Jobs said that Apple started to develop the new (current) iMac the day the older ones were announced (one year before).
Wouldn't that mean that they need about a year for the next iMac, too (not only 3 month)?
Not necessarily. How do we know they weren't designing the Intel and PPC versions at the same time?

[Hattig]

Their executive team appears to have very good credentials, but so did the Transmeta team. Transmeta's goal was to produce high performance processors at very low wattage. Unfortunately, the Crusoe failed to live up to its performance promises.

I wish PA Semi every success, but it's too early and completely imprudent for a company with Apple's requirements to bank its future on a 2-year old startup.

The two companies are in different leagues when it comes to credentials.

I have not said that Apple should bank its future on a 2 year old startup, I said that the PA Semi processor wouldn't be a suitable Mac processor anyway - better than a G4 and maybe the G5 in terms of processing power, and only great in terms of power consumption, but otherwise better for the embedded market.

Apple is having to make this change, they have no alternative. They'll probably reassess what the options are every couple of years of course, so that they can release on whatever is the best processor at the time, be it x86, x86-64 or PowerPC, should it ever make a massive comeback.

[Hattig]

Not necessarily. How do we know they weren't designing the Intel and PPC versions at the same time?
They only needed to design a new motherboard.

From what I recall, the new iMac has a quite different interior, and more separate boards instead of a single large motherboard. Maybe all Apple has to do is design a new motherboard of the same size and layout as the current iMac G5's (and with similar system topologies - CPU, Northbridge->Memory, southbridge that isn't too bad). They probably designed the motherboards at the same time, or slightly offset, and are merely waiting for Yonahs.

[thedude110]

iMac? That would be weird... but maybe this transition demands some weird choices.


Very well said. It seems like an odd choice to update the top consumer machine first -- the last thing Apple wants is a top of the line Rev A consumer machine that gets horrid word of mouth.

But, this isn't a normal update. This is a makeover. I still expect the Mini first, but this wouldn't surprise me ...

[JereIC]

With the recent number of rumors about Apple releasing Intel Macs early, I can't help but think Apple is putting out deliberate misinformation. Probably they found they were ahead of schedule and decided to move one line to Intel in January or Feburary as a trial run, but are trying to hide which line by telling different people different lines. That, or they've hired somebody to call Appleinsider's line and spam it with misinformation, mostly for Steve Jobs's amusement.

Anyway, an early Intel Mac Mini makes a lot more sense than an Intel Powerbook or iMac. The Intel Mac itself is a weird idea, and possibly not a completely bug-free idea yet, so people will be hesitant to buy them. At the same time, Apple is aware there's the potential to a PR disaster if the first Intel Macs have trouble that cause people grief. So, why would Apple first sell Intel iMacs and PowerBooks, which cost a $1200-$3000 each and often mission-critical? If even a minor bug cropped up, it would build up so much bad will that it could hurt Apple and the Intel switch for years.

Instead, if they sold Intel Mac Minis, they'd give people who are interested in the Intel switch a relatively inexpensive and consequence-free way to try it out. Most people who buy the Minis would be buying them as secondary computers, so if there were massive bugs it wouldn't hurt people as much as having their main computer not work. At worst, Apple could just recall the whole lot and send people an improved model a week later. Further, Apple would have real-world expirience with the Intel switch when they introduce their main computers, and be able to work out the bugs from them. Apple would also like to see if people can break their new and improved methods of keeping people from running Mac OS X86 on generic hardware. Finally, as people expiriment and find ways to boot Windows on the thing, a lot of Windows users may buy it to see what the whole Mac thing is about, figuring they've got a decent back-up PC if they don't like the Mac OS. So by selling a Intel Mac Mini first, Apple gets a larger beta-test of the whole Intel thing, early adopters get a cheap way to try Intel (and you know they'll buy the Intel iMac six months later, too), and developers have an earlier and larger base to sell Intel apps to. I expect Intel Mac Minis early next year, possibly with a high-end model that includes a remote, FrontRow, and TV-out (hey, it runs 90% of the applicaitons I have in slow-as-hell emulation*, but it makes a fantastic media center!).

Then again, Apple did replace their top-selling iPod Mini at its peak with a newer model, they may be gutsy enough to stick unproven technology into their top selling Mac three months after they've updated it.

*Yeah, I have higher hopes for Rosetta, but it's not going to be anywhere close to the marketing hype.

[840quadra]

Oh no, where to begin??



Yes ROSETTA Is the Answer!


"What Can Be Translated?
Rosetta is designed to translate currently shipping applications that run on a PowerPC with a G3 processor (emphasis mine) and that are built for Mac OS X. Rosetta does not run the following:
- Applications built for Mac OS 8 or 9
- Code written specifically for AltiVec
- Code that inserts preferences in the System Preferences pane
- Applications that require a G4 or G5 processor
- Applications that depend on one or more kernel extensions
- Kernel extensions
- Bundled Java applications or Java applications with JNI libraries that can't be translated"


Unless this has, or will change by the time the Intel Macintosh systems come out, you are going to have trouble loading, or running applications that are AltiVec dependent.

Granted most are programmed to turn that functionality OFF when using a G3 processor equipped system , they do see decreases in speed. Remember using Rosetta is essentially turning off all things Altivec, thus emulates a G3 not a G4 or G5 with the advantages inhearant.

For Most of us, that defeats the purpose of buying a new machine. This is because many of the speed enhancement features of the software we pay a premium for, are disabled because the system will not support it.

For many of us, Intel is not a viable option until software developers port their software to use Intel's SSE architecture.

[RobHague]

Bravo 840quadra :D

Anyway...

What I thought the MacMini was rumored to be the first to get updated?
Now its the iMac??

Why!? that means the new version would have the shortest lifespan ever. It's just got DDR2 and PCI-express... and a speed-bump to last all of 3 months? :confused:

These rumors are getting daft.

Sources familiar with Apple's Intel plans now believe the Mac maker is striving to complete its transition to Intel chips in the by the fall of 2006, several months ahead of schedule.

Hmmmmm.... why exactley?

[denial]

Bravo 840quadra :D

Anyway...

What I thought the MacMini was getting updated? Now its the iMac?? Why that means the new version would have the shortest lifespan ever. It's just got DDR2 and PCI-express... all that for all of 3 months? :confused:

These rumors are getting daft.

Various rumors are highlighting virtually every model. Perhaps they will all change in January
:p

[Gatorman]

That is yours and mine logic that says the value of yours will drop after Intel, but it won't. If you get the Intel one, within a few weeks of release, you'd still be able to get a good amount on ebay. Macs really hold value, even though chip generations, etc.

Overall, I don't find this rumor unbelievable at all. I find it is *very* accurate. Anyone who thought Apple wasn't going to have Intel macs until the very month they said they would be shipping by are not looking at this correctly. Apple wants to surprise and beat competitors.

The Powerbook update this fall was simply to make it more attractive, for those who need a machine now. It added some features and cut the price. Nice.

Appleinsider has been quite accurate lately, and this rumor just makes sense, in my opinion.


Precisely. Apple said that the Intel's would be "SHIPPING" by June. Shipping does not always (and most of the time) imply release. These models could already be released and shipping by that time period. In fact, I can promise you know that the new PB updates (the last Rev, not the Intels) will be shipping by Dec! :D

[ksz]

Unless this has, or will change by the time the Intel Macintosh systems come out, you are going to have trouble loading, or running applications that are AltiVec dependent.

Granted most are programmed to turn that functionality OFF when using a G3 processor equipped system , they do see decreases in speed. Remember using Rosetta is essentially turning off all things Altivec, thus emulates a G3 not a G4 or G5 with the advantages inhearant.

For Most of us, that defeats the purpose of buying a new machine. This is because many of the speed enhancement features of the software we pay a premium for, are disabled because the system will not support it.

For many of us, Intel is not a viable option until software developers port their software to use Intel's SSE architecture.
I would not expect to use Rosetta for more than a year. Accelerating the swtich to Intel should motivate developers to accelerate their switch as well. Meanwhile, Apple may continue to sell certain PPC-based systems through the end of 2006.

The point is not that Rosetta is a viable alternative. It is not. The point is to accelerate the entire shift to Intel, and that means more companies than just Apple.

[ksz]

They only needed to design a new motherboard.

From what I recall, the new iMac has a quite different interior, and more separate boards instead of a single large motherboard. Maybe all Apple has to do is design a new motherboard of the same size and layout as the current iMac G5's (and with similar system topologies - CPU, Northbridge->Memory, southbridge that isn't too bad). They probably designed the motherboards at the same time, or slightly offset, and are merely waiting for Yonahs.
Seems reasonable and plausible.

[afsammie]

Appleinsider is becoming so sketchy that we should have a rumorsite that speculates on the rumors that appleinsider may or may not release. Then, Appleinsider could sue that site for leaking rumors about its rumors. We could even complain when Appleinsider doesn't give us the rumors we want.
Macrumors should start speculating on Applensider rumors before they are released, get in the ground floor.

Where's our Dual Dual Intel rumors, Appleinsider? PC users have Dual Dual Intel rumors. Why don't we?

[ksz]

.

[ksz]

Apple is having to make this change, they have no alternative. They'll probably reassess what the options are every couple of years of course, so that they can release on whatever is the best processor at the time, be it x86, x86-64 or PowerPC, should it ever make a massive comeback.
Sounds like a good way to keep a tight reign on Intel. A potential second supplier is always a good ace card to play at the negotiating table.

[denial]

Too many rumors from too many "sources". I hope January does not see a huge letdown.

[JeffTL]

I'm looking forward to this.

In my experience, Intel processors are pretty good when they aren't wasted on Windows.

[adrian-cg]

Even if the PB were introduced in 2/06 and the specs were amazing, I'd rather wait it out and get one until the software can actually make use of said specs.

I'll take the 1.67 G4 over Rosetta any day.

[RobHague]

Sounds like a good way to keep a tight reign on Intel. A potential second supplier is always a good ace card to play at the negotiating table.

That's what id like to see them doing. They said they told their programmers to keep the OS processor 'independant' so i was hoping that Apple would actually offer PPC and x86 products along side each other...

There are some interesting PPC products ive heard, who was it that was making Quad Cores? Anyhow yeah it would be nice if Apple kept its options open to bring the best product at the time PPC or x86.

[840quadra]

I would not expect to use Rosetta for more than a year. Accelerating the swtich to Intel should motivate developers to accelerate their switch as well. Meanwhile, Apple may continue to sell certain PPC-based systems through the end of 2006.

The point is not that Rosetta is a viable alternative. It is not. The point is to accelerate the entire shift to Intel, and that means more companies than just Apple.

I understand what you are saying. It just sounded like (in your previous long post) that you were calling Rosetta the answer to peoples problems with jumping on intel systems right away.

I would assume (and hope) that Apple has learned allot about this type of transition during the 68k -> PPC and Classic -> OS X changeovers.

[mac-er]

The iMac is their main computer offering. I would also say the PowerBook is their main portable. The two most popular/best selling products they have, I assume. It makes sense.


I don't think this makes any sense, seeing that the iMac was just upgraded.

If I had just bought an iMac and 3 months later they change out the processor..I would be pissed/dissappointed in the least.

Then again, like someone else said, maybe this new iMac is the "Intel form factor", and all they have to do is switch out the motherboard. Maybe it will be a way to say, "Hey, its still a Mac...it doesn't matter what chip is in it."

[denial]

I don't think this makes any sense, seeing that the iMac was just upgraded.

If I had just bought an iMac and 3 months later they change out the processor..I would be pissed/dissappointed in the least.

Then again, like someone else said, maybe this new iMac is the "Intel form factor", and all they have to do is switch out the motherboard. Maybe it will be a way to say, "Hey, its still a Mac...it doesn't matter what chip is in it."

I agree. With the new "slightly smaller" form factor for the iMac (plus the upgraded spec) I just can't see yet another changer so quickly.

[ksz]

I don't think this makes any sense, seeing that the iMac was just upgraded.

If I had just bought an iMac and 3 months later they change out the processor..I would be pissed/dissappointed in the least.

Then again, like someone else said, maybe this new iMac is the "Intel form factor", and all they have to do is switch out the motherboard. Maybe it will be a way to say, "Hey, its still a Mac...it doesn't matter what chip is in it."
It makes sense to me that Apple would switch to Intel with its top selling models first. Apple is committed to Intel; switching the iMac and PowerBooks first makes sense for at least these reasons:

1. Both require high performance, low power chips. Both can use either single or dual core versions of Yonah.

2. If Apple switches the Mac mini first, it makes a weak statement, particularly because Apple will need to use a lower performance processor in that model.

3. Switching the best-selling models makes a more powerful statement and catches the interest of a wider audience. It also motivates the developer community to accelerate their switch.

4. It is more risky to switch the best-selling models, but Apple has already committed to Intel. There is no turning back at this time. The iPod mini to iPod nano is a good example of Apple's ability to Think Different.

[picklescott]

I can see 2 good reasos for Apple to use the same case as the iMac G5 (iSight):

1) Designing new cases and preparing the production lines cost money.

2) Imagine a row of iMacs at MacWorld. Some are Intel based and some are PowerPC based. Walk up to an iMac and play with it - does it really matter which processor it has in it?

Or... Apple does what they did with the Mac mini recently...
"You might get an iMac that's PowerPC or you might get one that's Intel!"
(even though the label says that it's Intel)..

haha

[sjphoto]

Have a G5, 23" Cinema Display, which I love, sold my TI Book, have
$7,500.00 sitting in the bank was looking to replace my TI book was
in the Apple store at least 3 times looked at several PowerBooks left
with a couple of ipod video's. Something kept me from purchasing
a PowerBook to replace the old one, then a day after I game the closest
to buying a new PowerBook, but did not pull the trigger i heard the news
about the new intel PowerBook and really got excited. I live in San
Francisco and MacWorld is in my backyard, I attend every year with
my 2 son's, DJ 7 years old, eMac and Zane 13, ibook. I think this will
be our best MacWorld ever. Life is good.

[ksz]

Life is good.
I have never attended a MacWorld keynote. SJ is less than an hour from SF and I've attended MacWorld only once. But I'll plan to attend this January.

BTW, life is what you make of it. Some know how to enjoy it and some don't. Seems like you're in the first camp!

[tny]

I seriously doubt that the iMac will be one of the first systems updated. I'm guessing that Yonah will be going into the machines that currently sport a G4 (the iBook, the PowerBook, and the mini), as Yonah is a 32-bit processor. I don't think they'll replace the G5s with 32-bit processors (maybe Merom will go into the iMac, even though Merom is a notebook processor). Merom might replace Yonah in the PowerBook. Apparently Intel has a quad-core design under development?

[shawnce]

I just don't see anything other then consumer grade systems going Intel in 1Q06. I also exclude the iMac given the recent update (unless Apple just doesn't care about recovering cost of the chip set).

The reason I exclude pro systems (PowerBook, etc.) is that likely many professional applications (including a few of Apple's) will not be ready with Intel native versions in 1H06 (unless some companies are just blowing smoke). I think Apple would hold off until a little later as result and to let the consumer system prepare the market by showing how well they work for Mac OS X and with native applications (I believe all of the Apple iLife applications could be ready in 1Q06, and many many of the small vendor 3rd party apps will be ready, lots already are).

Of course in general I personally still doubt they will release any Intel systems in 1Q06... 2Q06 yes, but additional detail in rumors may start to change my opinion.

It will be interesting to see how ready game vendors are...

[Baenshu]

Man I hope this is true. I have been holding off on the laptop buying for awhile now and it hurts cause I really need one right now. But just can't commit to buying one of the current ones knowing Intels are right around the corner.

I keep thinking, speculating... what are they going to call the Pro Towers? Can't really use G6!

[bigandy]

Besides, remember that Apple does not have to worry and invest on development of the logic board. Intel does it. Apple will use Intel logic boards on Mactels.

So apple just makes the case design, the OS and little more. That can speed up new Mac releses tremendously.

Expect to see new Mac models every few months once Mactel tales over on 2006. As in the PC-Windoze world.

A new bright future is ahead. And the possibility to dual or triple booting as Mac-Win-Linux is fantastic and will sell many many many Mactels around the world. I only hope that one could switch between OSes without rebooting the whole system. Much as Classic woks now, but a full native speed, of course.

not going to happen. apple WILL NOT use standard logic boards, for one reason - it'd be impossible, and i mean completely impossible to stop mainstream piracy. that's the reason so many copies of OS X x86 have been downloaded, because the developer version uses a standard intel board, making piracy easier - due to the lack of customised, apple only, components.

[sephirot]

Bravo 840quadra :D

Anyway...

What I thought the MacMini was rumored to be the first to get updated?
Now its the iMac??

Why!? that means the new version would have the shortest lifespan ever. It's just got DDR2 and PCI-express... and a speed-bump to last all of 3 months? :confused:

These rumors are getting daft.

Sources familiar with Apple's Intel plans now believe the Mac maker is striving to complete its transition to Intel chips in the by the fall of 2006, several months ahead of schedule.

Hmmmmm.... why exactley?

Probably because the Intel chips Apple wants to use are half a year ahead of time?

Naaah. Bwah ha ha ha! :p

[bigandy]

I keep thinking, speculating... what are they going to call the Pro Towers? Can't really use G6!


why not? unless i'm very much mistaken, G5 and suchlike are apple terms, and it is talking generations of processor families. so it could be...

but G6, to me, doesn't sound so great...

[manu chao]

oh, you poor souls clinching your brand new Powerbooks. have you already forgotten the TITANIUM POWERBOOK HISTORY? DANG! I got my first Mac, a super-loaded GHz Tibook, in November of 2003, literally days after they were announced. and that was actually a reasonable upgrade--you know, they sped up the processor some 'n' stuff.

You must mean November 2002, since that is when I got my TiBook as well (and I literally ordered it two days before the announcement but since they had run out of the old models at that moment already I got the new one).

[Peace]

There was a reason Powerbooks wern't bumped up in October..
This rumor shows why.
The machines are ready imho..Only waiting on the software to get moved over..

Jobs said some apps would take "months" to recompile on Intel..
Well by the time January rolls around those "months" will have come and gone.

I think we will see Intel iMacs and Powerbooks alongside the PPC models.

[Beck446]

I've read like half of this thread and nobody has given the correct explanation for why this rumor is true: the powerbooks and imacs cost more than the mini or ibooks. More profits.

[dongmin]

If there's one thing we should have learned by now, it is that Apple's strategy is definitely not as predictable as we think it is!

This AppleInsider report is absolute junk. Pure speculation, and a bad one at that. Apple will NOT dump the PPC iMac 3 months after they've redesigned the motherboard and redesigned the case. And the iMac happens to be one of their best sellers.

Take a gander at everymac.com. Apple likes to milk existing designs as long as possible. Every design has lasted at least a couple iterations. People talk about how Apple released the 12" & 17" PBs a couple months after they updated the 15" PB, but those were introducing completely new products; they weren't replacements for the old one. Likewise, don't worry about the brand spanking new iMac being replaced 3 months after its release. Makes NOOOOO sense whatsoever.

Of course, the PB is a completely different story...

[denial]

I've read like half of this thread and nobody has given the correct explanation for why this rumor is true: the powerbooks and imacs cost more than the mini or ibooks. More profits.

But surely you would have to factor in the "loss" of sales of ibooks and minis if that was true. There would be a huge downturn in sales of those models.

[dlastmango]

Do you think the batteries would last longer with the Intel Chips or is it basically the same on power consumption. Talking powerbooks or iBooks of course.

Thanks
Chris

[applekid]

I was hoping to see a Mac Mini revision with Front Row at MWSF... I don't care if there's Intel chips inside those Macs, as long as it doesn't get in the way of my plans for a graphics design setup.

Will Intel Macs have little to no trouble with current hardware drivers? I'd assume things would be okay because it's more of an OS thing...

[RichP]

Not to come across as an ignorant Apple Fanboy, but do you REALLY think Apple and Steve Jobs are going to release new equipment that is slower and doesnt perform better than what they currently offer.

Im fully confident the Intel release is going to be a significant performance increase in speed and power efficiency, and the release is not going to be without ALOT of the big software players bringing out their apps the same day as the Intel machines are annouced.

I think we will see new powerbooks and imacs this winter/spring. Powerbook will be a new design toting all the efficiencies and speed intel is bringing to the table, and the imacs will just get some new internals, proving the intel switch is a great thing (powerbook) but nothing alien (new imac).

And PA Semiconductor? Pipedream. That would be a verydangerous move for Apple to make. Like posted, companies like transmeta have come and gone. Granted, its totally feasible they will come out with this chip, but waiting for something that is two years out is risky. (Realize Apple is on a tight timeframe; the iPod halo and fanfare is going to start to wane in a year or two as we see more personal device convergence)

[stephenli]

I would go for it. The G5 is a fast processor. If they switch to Intel this soon it could actually slow things down. The only bad thing is that shiny new iMac would be an orphan and it would be hard to give away when the new ones come out and all people have on their mind is..Intel...Intel...Intel.

agree!!!! i am very satisfy on my dual 2.7ghz at work
and yet even thinking of purchasing a new iMac G5 for home

but....how come u guys seems to have no burden on Power PC apps?
Rosetta wont run current apps well, and we have to invest in new software while intel mac arrives.....

[stephenli]

I've read like half of this thread and nobody has given the correct explanation for why this rumor is true: the powerbooks and imacs cost more than the mini or ibooks. More profits.

ha? nobody knows the profit margin of apple products.
"cost more" is not equal to "more profit"
sorry but lets pick up an Economics textbook.....

[hyperpasta]

Powerbook, sure. It's the Mac that stands to benfit the most from the transition. Imagine: A 15" Widescreen Powerbook in Dual 1.8 and Dual 2.0 configurations. Thin, sexy, aluminum goodness. Who cares if it was just updated: the update measured a 2.3/10 on the Richter scale. Oooooh, high-res screens (totally necessary but still not excting).

But the iMac? It was also just updated, but in a big way. I bet that Apple will wait and wow us with a super-thin 23" Intel iMac (Maybe Dual 2.3) sometime later in 2006.

The Mac mini should also switch ASAP, and get Front Row (in an earlier post I suggested it could get a white plastic stripe on the lower half of the case for housing the IR receiver). It COULD be accompanied by new higher-quality displays with built-in iSights, which WILL come eventually. Apple should take its iPod ad budget and switch it to the Mac for teh first half of the year.

The iBook can switch over anytime before April.

The PowerMac will switch over last.

The eMac should be replaced by a stripped-down educational iMac.

[digitalmatty]

so what's the price diff going to be between ppc and intel? pricier or cheaper? What do you guys think? Lower price point to intice people to buy the Intels, and jack the prices in Rev. B's? Or keep it high?

[denial]

so what's the price diff going to be between ppc and intel? pricier or cheaper? What do you guys think? Lower price point to intice people to buy the Intels, and jack the prices in Rev. B's? Or keep it high?

I would doubt higher. Just from a marketing point of view that would be a slight negative. About the same kind of price range.

[Baenshu]

why not? unless i'm very much mistaken, G5 and suchlike are apple terms, and it is talking generations of processor families. so it could be...

but G6, to me, doesn't sound so great...


Thats really more what I meant... they could use it, but it just would't seem to fit. I would think they would just come up with a whole new name and design.

[bigrustyjc]

I just don't see anything other then consumer grade systems going Intel in 1Q06. I also exclude the iMac given the recent update (unless Apple just doesn't care about recovering cost of the chip set).

The reason I exclude pro systems (PowerBook, etc.) is that likely many professional applications (including a few of Apple's) will not be ready with Intel native versions in 1H06 (unless some companies are just blowing smoke). I think Apple would hold off until a little later as result and to let the consumer system prepare the market by showing how well they work for Mac OS X and with native applications (I believe all of the Apple iLife applications could be ready in 1Q06, and many many of the small vendor 3rd party apps will be ready, lots already are).

Of course in general I personally still doubt they will release any Intel systems in 1Q06... 2Q06 yes, but additional detail in rumors may start to change my opinion.

It will be interesting to see how ready game vendors are...

I completely agree with you here. Why would apple release a new Powerbook first when pro users are the target audience of the powerbooks. Why make the pro-users who do the most critical computing on their powerbooks beta testers? It doesn't make sense.

I followed all of the rumors on the forums leading up to the latest PB release last month. It seemed like the general feeling was that the PB would most likely NOT be first Mac to go to Intel because of the lack of native software support, etc. It's funny to me that the common opinion on this thread is that the powerbook will be the first to go Intel.

Things just don't add up to me to have Apple make their top of the line, pro laptop be the first to go to Intel with all of the issues that come with a first revision of a major architectural change.

[Mitch1984]

So, Apple is about to launch Intel based hardware as early as January? Has anyone even thought that this may be academic if the OS is not ready yet? As of now, both are at 10.4.3 as far as features go, but spend even a second at the relevant forums and you can see that there is still a lot of work to do to get OS X86 ready for the market. iTunes is rumoured to have been ported to Intel, but apart from iPhoto, the rest of the iApps are still PPC, to say nothing of the rest of Apple's stable of applications.

I heard most apple apps are dual binarys at the moment.

[mdavey]

why not? ... G5 ... are apple terms

Fascinating point. Given that G5 is 64bit architecture and G4 is 32bit, and that the 64bit Intel chips that Apple want to use probably aren't going to be ready for January - what will they replace first and what would they call it?

I assumed that they would replace the G4-based products first (iBook, PowerBook and Mac mini) as they seem the slowest and would benefit most from a cheaper bill of materials. But that would require either calling the new processor F5, G6 or G4+.

I can't see them going for G6 - that would suggest that the new range outperforms the existing PowerMac products which probably won't be true and probably would negatively impact sales of the G5 products.

I would have thought G4+ would be rather confusing as it is a completely different architecture and doesn't seem Apple's style. Similarly labels such as G4.2 or gIV.

Unless Apple revamps the G5 products first and calls the new 64bit processor G7 (leaving G6 free for the consumer range). But those in the know seem to think that the 64bit processors are unlikey to be ready for mass-market within the next 4 months.

So the Apple Intel consumer processor range will be F5 then (because F is less than G). Or something completely different. And if they go for F5, what will they call the replacement for G5?

[840quadra]

Do you think the batteries would last longer with the Intel Chips or is it basically the same on power consumption. Talking powerbooks or iBooks of course.

Thanks
Chris

That Question is at this time impossible to answer.

Factors for that would depend on the speed of the processor, the type of battery used, and the charge capacity of what that battery is capable of.

I would imagine that Apple would want to make the battery life as best as they possibly can, but the specifications for the new books are still speculative at best for "most" people on these forums.

[Mass Hysteria]

I just felt like saying that right now, sorry Argentina!

[AidenShaw]

I can see them dropping the bomb of a dual core intel powered iMac in January, surpassing the power of most peecee desktops, just so they can give everyone the finger.
Huh?

More likely that as soon as Yonah starts to ship many of the PC vendors will have dual-core Yonah small form factor desktops as well as dual-core laptops. Apple won't be giving anyone the finger when everybody's using the same chips!

If Apple doesn't do something as soon as possible, they'll be seen as falling further behind on the portables - and suddenly the iMac will seem quite slow and dated (compared to the Intel SFF systems). :eek:

[bbyrdhouse]

What! Man I was sure hoping for a new iPod. The iPod has gone so long without an update. Apple rarely updates the iPod. It is in need of drastic updates. The Powerbook on the other hand just had a major redesign and major update 3 years ago, I think that it could hold off for oh at least another 12 months or so.

And the iMac, well we all know that it really needs to be the first mac with intel because it is the one mac computer that is so far behind the competition that it is embarrassing Apple. So it reaaly needs to the first one that makes the switch.
The trusty "old" Powerbook though, well they'll get to it when they do, but it's fine for a good long while.

OK I am being facetious just a tad bit.

[Durendal]

Baloney. Apple isn't going to boost the Powerbook before the iBook, especially after the last upgrade. The iBook, being the lower end machine, would be due for an upgrade before the Powerbook, not to mention the Powerbook was just upgraded. I don't think Apple is going to release anything that isn't based on the Yonah or better. I think January may be too optimistic for any Intel Macs. I'd put my money sometime around March or April.

[neeshman]

Amongst all the discussion about this topic I have seen many a post about the native OSX softwarethat will be available (IE iPhoto, iDVD, iMovie, iTunes etc...)

I highly doubt that Apple is so desperate to release the new Mactels that they would release a bare-bones version of OSX. That would make no sense whatsoever.

Imagine this: "Today apple released their new line of computers powered by Intel Processors today. Incorporating the new Yonah processors by Intel, the new machines are setting record speeds on all levels. But unfortunatley you can't do a single thing on these computers because every piece of software is still a year away. Word processing, photo editing, even their trademark movie player "Quicktime" has not yet been ported! But does that really matter becase you will at least have a great machine!"

Seriously... Maybe I am just dumb though :)

[Will Cheyney]

What! Man I was sure hoping for a new iPod. The iPod has gone so long without an update. Apple rarely updates the iPod. It is in need of drastic updates...
Erm... The iPod has just been updated. Video? :rolleyes:

[SiliconAddict]

Need I remind everyone on this thread we're talking about AppleInsider.com... aka "used to be relevant in 1998 and even then maybe not." They are, in fact right... about 3% of the time.

[scratch]

Move along people, nothing to see here.

Actually there is something to see here. A couple things. First the one consistent rumor right now is something in January. What that might be is anyone's guess. But pretty much everyone is saying it at this point. (Whether this is another case of getting the rumor from the first to post it. *shrugs*)

Secondly the fact that the rumors are all over the board means that (at least one of the rumor sites.) heard about a release and is filling in the blanks. IMHO think secret's rumors are a "lets be different then everyone else" rumor because frankly iMacs before Mac Minis makes NO sense whatsoever.

[840quadra]

Erm... The iPod has just been updated. Video? :rolleyes:

Please read his/her entire post :rolleyes: :p

A bit of a sarcastic tone to it, highlighted by their final line :)

[SiliconAddict]

Erm... The iPod has just been updated. Video? :rolleyes:

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

[SiliconAddict]

I just don't see anything other then consumer grade systems going Intel in 1Q06. I also exclude the iMac given the recent update (unless Apple just doesn't care about recovering cost of the chip set).

The reason I exclude pro systems (PowerBook, etc.) is that likely many professional applications (including a few of Apple's) will not be ready with Intel native versions in 1H06 (unless some companies are just blowing smoke). I think Apple would hold off until a little later as result and to let the consumer system prepare the market by showing how well they work for Mac OS X and with native applications (I believe all of the Apple iLife applications could be ready in 1Q06, and many many of the small vendor 3rd party apps will be ready, lots already are).

Of course in general I personally still doubt they will release any Intel systems in 1Q06... 2Q06 yes, but additional detail in rumors may start to change my opinion.

It will be interesting to see how ready game vendors are...


One thing to note though. What is the likelihood of Rosetta apps on a dual core x86 PowerBook running FASTER or as fast as on G4 PowerBook??? Apple was claiming up to 80% of the speed of a PPC through Rosetta. I had thought benchmarks somewhat proved this. (Someone ran benchmarks though Rosetta.)
The reality is the G4 PowerBook is in a shambles right now. The biggest bottleneck right now isn't the CPU and its clocks. It’s the FSB and its pathetic 167Mhz. I'm wondering if there could be enough of a performance gap to make an x86 PowerBook worth while even though many of the pro apps will only run on Rosetta. Also keep in mind that all of Apple's pro apps are probably ready or very close to being x86 ready. That represents a significant number of apps used on the Mac.

So what happens if. . . In January Apple announces PowerBooks shipping in March with said PowerBooks

-Running Final Cut Pro, Soundtrack Pro, Motion 2, DVD Studio, Aperture, Logic Pro, Shake, all of iLife and iWork natively. With Rosetta apps running at 90% performance of the G4 PowerBook?

Yah I’m playing WAY fast and loose with the performance guessing but what if?

[sjphoto]

When your thinking is limited so will your expectations.

[SiliconAddict]

When your thinking is limited so will your expectations.

heh. More like bored minds breed rumors. Active minds breed insight. :)

[sjphoto]

You can lead a horse to water but you can not make him drink it. ;)

[Alex Cutter]

When your thinking is limited so will your expectations.
:rolleyes:

[Quartz Extreme]

This is probably the most ridiculous rumor yet. I have very little faith in AppleInsider's "extremely reliable sources and a several-month-long investigation." This one just doesn't make sense, and belongs on Page 2 at best.

The PowerBook, while having been updated only a few weeks ago, is designed to be an on-the-go workstation for professionals...professionals that use big programs like Photoshop, which isn't a universal binary yet. Yes, Rosetta is great, and will help smooth out the transition, but it isn't a replacement for a native third-party application, especially if running this application is vital to your daily work!

The iMac, which has also been updated recently, is another very unlikely candidate for Intel processors. The PowerPC G5 likely outperforms anything that Intel has to offer at this time.

Let's remember here folks that the transition is slated to take place from 2006-2007, and not all programs are universal binaries yet.

The Mac mini, on the other hand, would be a wonderful recipient of Intel processors. Aside from a few speed bumps, it hasn't really been heavily updated at all since it's introduction, and from what I've heard sales have been slowing since the "specification grab bag" incident. The Mac mini, after all, is pretty much an experiment if you think about it, why not throw an Intel chip in it? If they do so, it should come with a Core Image capable graphics chip and Front Row. Releasing an Intel Mac mini as early as January could also pressure developers to expedite their universal binary efforts without alienating them.

Apple is in a transition phase right now. Transitions are difficult and need to be carefully planned and orchestrated in order to be successful. Apple has proved to be quite capable of making bold and exciting changes, and the switch to Intel processors will be no exception. They will do it correctly, and not rush into things, or make poor decisions. After all, this is Apple we're talking about!

[SiliconAddict]

You can lead a horse to water but you can not make him drink it. ;)


Look both ways when crossing the street. :D

[Alex Cutter]

You can lead a horse to water but you can not make him drink it. ;)
Do you get paid by the cliche?

[generik]

I completely agree with you here. Why would apple release a new Powerbook first when pro users are the target audience of the powerbooks. Why make the pro-users who do the most critical computing on their powerbooks beta testers? It doesn't make sense.

It makes sense, simply because: the "pro" user is dead.

Apple is not interested in selling PBs to pro users anymore, that's right, all you winos, bearded movie director and photographers can take it and shove it up your a$$.. Steve doesn't give two hoots about you.

The recent horizontal line issue on the new updated PBs is a testament to this. What Steve wants is just a sleak stylish laptop that he can push out to the MASSES who *think* of themselves as pro users.

You other pro users? "Think different"? haha, you are probably too tied to FCP and Logic to switch, what are you gonna do when you get stuffed over, switch to Intel?

Steve knows he can keep screwing the "pros" and no adverse effect will come out of it, he knows it.

Just in case you are wondering, the recent increase in mac sales is so not dependent on pro users btw...

[bigwig]

Besides, remember that Apple does not have to worry and invest on development of the logic board. Intel does it. Apple will use Intel logic boards on Mactels.
I doubt it. If they use stock boards they won't be able to lock down OSX and prevent you from running it on non-Mac x86 machines.

[Peace]

I can't see Apple actually using Rosetta in any final Intel Mac..
It's designed as a stop gap temporary bandage until the apps are ported to Intel.
Using Rosetta in a real world Intel would make for a lot of jokes from the Windows community..
Just my opinion..We all have em!:)

[bigandy]

Huh?

More likely that as soon as Yonah starts to ship many of the PC vendors will have dual-core Yonah small form factor desktops as well as dual-core laptops. Apple won't be giving anyone the finger when everybody's using the same chips!

If Apple doesn't do something as soon as possible, they'll be seen as falling further behind on the portables - and suddenly the iMac will seem quite slow and dated (compared to the Intel SFF systems). :eek:


yeah, but look at the way OSX could potentially be running on intel - i'm sure it's going to be far more powerful per MHZ than windows. i don't see even pc machines from similar companies competing, because they don't have the operating system edge.

[bigwig]

For Photoshop? It could be that bad. Remember Rosetta emulates a G3, so Photshop under Rosetta will not have acess to SIMD (AltiVec on G4, G5) type instructions.
Not only is Photoshop under Rosetta bad, it's not credible. One presumes that Adobe already has SSE2/3-optimized routines for its Windows product. Plug them in and go.

[bigwig]

Promises promises. Apple has been the unfortunate victim of promises. They need a far more confident, capable, and aggressive supplier. Intel is that supplier.
Intel has a long history of schedule delays, cancellations, and general promise breaking. For starters, just look those poor suckers (HP, SGI) who bet their futures on Itanium.

[Bonte]

Pro apps won't run on macintel for 2 or 3 years so the tower, powerbook and iMac won't be updated first. The mini that's been promoted as the switch model needs to go first and hopefully as a mediacenter with frontrow. The rest is just FUD to misguide the rumors sites. :mad:

[Baenshu]

It makes sense, simply because: the "pro" user is dead.

Apple is not interested in selling PBs to pro users anymore, that's right, all you winos, bearded movie director and photographers can take it and shove it up your a$$.. Steve doesn't give two hoots about you.


Wow, are you serious!? I think that is probably the most far fetched thing I have heard since... well since the rumor that PowerBooks were going to be updated in January.

Signed Bearded Photographer/Director

[JohnEZ]

Baloney. Apple isn't going to boost the Powerbook before the iBook, especially after the last upgrade. The iBook, being the lower end machine, would be due for an upgrade before the Powerbook, not to mention the Powerbook was just upgraded.

Actually, Apple can fit in one more G4 iBook upgrade before Intel. The PB, however, has undergone what many believe to be the final revision. If that's so, the PB will get Intel before the iBook.

[iEdd]

Pb has to be first. If they go and update iBook before pb, then I shall buy a bloody vaio and hack it.
Anyway, I think it's likely for them to release two intel macs at the same time to get intel truly out there. One desktop, one laptop makes sense. Powerbooks need it badly. As for desktop, maybe the mac mini, as G4s need the switch more than G5s.

[syklee26]

why do you guys think that prosumer products will not be the first update? no mactel software?

why don't you guys consider the fact that many of the prosumer mac users also use apple softwares such as logic, Final Cut, Shake and Motion? and, add to that, Aperture is coming soon too. Apple is in position to gain even more software sales by releasing mactels earlier than anticipated, especially in the prosumer market.

also, when you consider the fact that powerbook is the best selling mac along with imac, it totally makes sense.

Apple has so much to gain from this early adoption move.

[Baenshu]

many of the prosumer mac users also use apple softwares such as logic, Final Cut, Shake and Motion? and, add to that, Aperture is coming soon too. Apple is in position to gain even more software sales by releasing mactels earlier than anticipated, especially in the prosumer market.



True. and I hope it is true, but I highly doubt it unless more 3rd party software is ready. In a lot of ways consumer machines ( like the mini, iBook and NOT the iMac) would make more sense. I can see March/April maybe but January just dosn't seem feesable. If the iLife package and Office is ready I can see them going with the iBook first and probly thowin the mini in there cause thats a machine they have been using to try and seduce Windows people anyway.

[Plymouthbreezer]

So do I still get an iMac G5 for Christmas? :confused:

[schatten]

Egad, I'm struggling to get the cash together to buy a new PowerPC laptop & Desktop before the Intel transition. I would much rather have the IBM processors during this big change-over rather than the new rev-A stuff! Especially considering the potential bumpy ride...

[Rend It]

In response to the guy who says that Intel is the "last place chip vendor", IBM "gave Apple the boot", and AMD can't even supply Apple's relatively small quantity demands, I predict:

In late 2007, Apple will surprise us all again with the announcement that OS X has actually had a triple life: not only will it run on PowerPCs or x86 processors, but after OS 10.5, it was given artificial intelligence and has secretly been evolving, developing new features by itself, AND the ability to run on any processor, be it the one in your cell phone, the quantum computer at NIST, or your own brain! Apple's mission of complete world dominance will be complete.

Oh, and in a media event a few weeks later, Apple will introduce its own Apple-branded cell phone, and call it the iControlU. :D

For you investors: No, Apple's stock will not plummet after the ubiquitous processor announcement.

-Rending It

[Stridder44]

ok, so i have the new imac on its way right now...

what should i do? i tend to not trust first releases of anything made by apple. so perhaps this falls under that category.

does anyone think it's worth returning the imac for? i mean is it really going to make a huge difference at this point.

you think it's wise to wait and see how this whole intell thing works out?:confused:


Im really wanting to get a new iMac to replace my current iMac G4, and was considering waiting for the Intel iMacs to come out...but then I remembered that Rev. A models usually aren't that great (this is true yes? I've heard lots of people complain about this). That, and the current top end iMac is effing fast.

[mpw]

Apologies if I'm going over old ground but I've not gone over all of the previous 8pages.

Anyone else think that Apple may lose the PowerBook and iBook names in favor of a new range of portable when they introduce the first Mactels?

I thought they might introduce something to replace the PB at the top of the range in January, drop the iBook and lower the current PB price points until an even greater Mactel comes along later in the year to take its place at the top of the range and drop the current PB to leave a two tier Mactel range.

[JereIC]

I'm sort of curious about how Apple is going to name these things. They might adopt a page from their Mac OS X playbook and name the computer after the Intel codename for the chip that goes in them. It keeps the <family> <processor> naming convention, differentiates Macs from each other and rest of the world, and keeps the icky Pentium name out of the Mac vocabulary.

Powerbook Yonah?

[Baenshu]

About the naming... dunno. I brought up this very question earlier today. Same goes for the G5... what will they call the pro towers... G6 just doesn't seem to fit. Would think they would go with a whole new name and design accross the board.

[generik]

Actually, Apple can fit in one more G4 iBook upgrade before Intel. The PB, however, has undergone what many believe to be the final revision. If that's so, the PB will get Intel before the iBook.

I believe it is possible for the PBs to go 7448 first before Intel, but of course.. what point there is in that is a good question, since the 7448s are still single core.

[generik]

Powerbook Yonah?

Why Yonah?

Intel won't even be marketing them as Yonah or Merom.. they are just internal code names. Apple will probably just come up with something snazzy, who knows, like yBook.

[Seasought]

All these rumors...

I'm still getting one in December. :D

[BlizzardBomb]

That, and the current top end iMac is effing fast.

Actually, the Rev. C 20-incher only scored 190 on Speedmark 4 vs. the Rev. B's 174. So not that big a difference.

That and it only pumped out an extra 8fps on Macworld's UT2004 test. Then again they test it with 512MB RAM but still.

[RobHague]

The new line will be called 'Intelli' ;) IntelliMac Splendido, IntelliMac Nano and the IntelliMac Jr.

IntelliMac Slendido (Coming Q? 2008)
Quad-Core Pentium (4.2ghz and 3.8Ghz) with 8Mb of CACHE (2MB x4)
(Uses a new form of cooling -- You move to alaska when you buy one)
1GB of DDR2 (Max 16GB)
400GB HDD
GeForce 6800 GS (Optional GeForce 7800 GT or Quadro 4500)
SUPPORTS SLI with 2x PCI-E 16x slots.

IntelliMac Jr. (Coming Q3 2006)
Dual-Cores at 3Ghz+ (Two Versions, 3.4Ghz and 3.8gz)
1Gb of DDR2 (Max 8GB)
250Gb HDD
GeForce 6600 (Optional upgrade to GT Edition for faster clocks)

IntelliMac Nano (Coming Q2 2006)
Single-Core upto 3.2Ghz (Three versions! 2.5, 2.7 and 3.2Ghz)
1Gb of DDR2 (Max 4GB)
160GB HDD
Nvidia GeForce 6200

Oh, as for iBooks and PowerBooks -- They will be renamed too to the 'iTrend' range. ;)

There you go! Think it will make it onto Apple Insider and all the other rumors sites? :D :D :D :D

[oskar]

For the consumer lineup (everything that starts with an "i") the names could probably stay the same. They could just drop the part of the name that says what processor the computer has. Like the iMac G5 could simply be an iMac and the iBook G4 go back to being called iBook. The problem is with the "Power" lineup, because I would believe they are called that way because of the Power PC architecture.

Or... how about this: Consumer macs will have something related to "Express" and the professional lineup have something with "Pro" in them (like Final Cut Express and Logic Express; Final Cut Pro and Logic Pro).

[mdavey]

Or... how about this: Consumer macs will have something related to "Express" and the professional lineup have something with "Pro" in them (like Final Cut Express and Logic Express; Final Cut Pro and Logic Pro).

ExpressBook, ExpressMac. Hmm. xBook, xMac ;)

[shawnce]

Running Final Cut Pro, Soundtrack Pro, Motion 2, DVD Studio, Aperture, Logic Pro, Shake, all of iLife and iWork natively. With Rosetta apps running at 90% performance of the G4 PowerBook?

I don't think the Apple's PRO apps will be ready in 1Q06 and I don't think you want to use those in Rosetta (likely not even possible as I outline below). Even 2Q06 would be pushing it IMHO but Apple may surprise us...

Note that Rosetta cannot translate applications that use AltiVec directly, I would image that many of pro-apps make use or AltiVec directly in various ways (ideally they all use the Accelerate framework, etc. but...). All Rosetta can translate are applications that run on a G3 and they will run in G3 "mode" losing AltiVec among other G4/G5 tuning that may have been done. So not only will they be translated but translated as if they are running on a G3.

What Can Be Translated? (http://developer.apple.com/documentation/MacOSX/Conceptual/universal_binary/universal_binary_exec_a/chapter_7_section_2.html)

[afields]

Why is everybody complaining? This is great news! I'll be first in line for a shiny powerbook....:)

[firsttube]

I don't think these announcements are going to be as soon as AppleInsider says. Perhaps new Powerbooks in March or somewhere around there, but I'm not sure it'd be much sooner than that. If Apple released these newfangled powerbooks after all those Christmas buyers just bought them, I'd imagine the customers would be really pissed off. I think the powerbook is going to be first, because the iMac is a killer computer right now and really doesn't need an update. I think AI might just be slippin at it's old age.


-Phil

[ksz]

Intel has a long history of schedule delays, cancellations, and general promise breaking. For starters, just look those poor suckers (HP, SGI) who bet their futures on Itanium.
Intel has a long and successful history of delivering processor upgrades and transitioning quickly to new process generations.

Unfortunately, the Pentium 4's design was a marketing-driven mistake (http://arstechnica.com/articles/paedia/cpu/pentium-2.ars/1) to win the megahertz race, but Intel managed to drive it aggressively ever since its debut in 2000 on a 180nm process:


From single core to hyperthreaded core to dual core.
From 180nm to 130nm in less than a year, then to 90nm (Prescott) and 65nm (Cedar Mill).
From 400MHz front-side bus (at a time when Pentium 3 was only doing 166MHz) to 1066MHZ.
From MMX to SSE to SSE2 to SSE3 in Prescott. See Technical Summary (http://www.geek.com/procspec/features/sse3/).
From 1.x GHz to 3.8 GHz.

With Pentium M, Intel has learned a lesson about the perils of marketing-driven designs. As good as the Pentium M is, Intel's dual-core technology still lags behind AMD because of the lack of a core-side bus. Such as bus will be added soon, but not in Yonah or Merom. Meanwhile we can look forward to IVT (Vanderpool or Intel Virtualization Technology). IVT will be available in dual-core versions of mobile and desktop processors. It's not clear whether dual-core Yonah will get IVT (despite the Express Computer Online article referenced below), but it's much more likely to appear in the dual-core Merom which is the mobile version of the Conroe platform. Among other enhancements, Merom will be 64-bit and will double the L2 cache from 2MB (Yonah) to 4MB. (These caches are shared between the cores.)

Virtualization technology allows a single server to be virtually partitioned into multiple computers, each of which can be running a different OS at the same time. Those wanting to run Windows and Mac OS simultaneously in independent virtual machines will theoretically be able to do so (OS support for IVT needed).

From http://www.expresscomputeronline.com/20050926/technology01.shtml
The technology is designed to enable users run multiple operating systems and applications in separate partitions on a single processor. Like the general virtualisation software, this will enable customers to create several virtual systems on a single physical system.

Linux Xen 3.0: http://www.dell.com/downloads/global/power/ps3q05-20050191-Abels.pdf

Virtualization is the next logical step in the evolution of multi-core processors.

[Eastend]

Hey, I'll be fair to AI, they are probably just reporting what their sources told them. So look at the real side of things, first they were going to make the mac mini intel, next it was iMacs or powerbooks or whatever. Face it, the rumor sites do not know and maybe even Apple is not sure yet, this is just a rumor and probably not a very good rumor, yet. Personally I go along with what a few others have said in this thread, about G4's needing something better than G4's.

[xsnightclub]

Amongst all the discussion about this topic I have seen many a post about the native OSX softwarethat will be available (IE iPhoto, iDVD, iMovie, iTunes etc...)

I highly doubt that Apple is so desperate to release the new Mactels that they would release a bare-bones version of OSX. That would make no sense whatsoever.

Imagine this: "Today apple released their new line of computers powered by Intel Processors today. Incorporating the new Yonah processors by Intel, the new machines are setting record speeds on all levels. But unfortunatley you can't do a single thing on these computers because every piece of software is still a year away. Word processing, photo editing, even their trademark movie player "Quicktime" has not yet been ported! But does that really matter becase you will at least have a great machine!"

Seriously... Maybe I am just dumb though :)

Yes. You make yourself appear so.

[xsnightclub]

I've read like half of this thread and nobody has given the correct explanation for why this rumor is true: the powerbooks and imacs cost more than the mini or ibooks. More profits.

And more importantly, much higher margins!

[CalfCanuck]

I don't think the Apple's PRO apps will be ready in 1Q06 and I don't think you want to use those in Rosetta (likely not even possible as I outline below). Even 2Q06 would be pushing it IMHO but Apple may surprise us...
While this is all a lot of speculation, I think the ONE thing we should count on is that Apple's Pro applications will be among the first to be available.

Apple's SW division has known about this switch much longer than the development community in general, plus it has all of Apple's resources. That gives them about 18 months, and Apple's resources (2005 FY earnings $1.3 billion).

Do you really think that the FCP team is just waking up to this? Or that Aperture, which is due to be released, is not already being developed cross-platform?

[xsnightclub]

ha? nobody knows the profit margin of apple products.
"cost more" is not equal to "more profit"
sorry but lets pick up an Economics textbook.....

Do you ever bother to read the Quarterly financial reports? Apple does not actually break down their margins, but they do elude to them by product category. Either blaming or praising results by increased or decreased sales in a certain section (ie. this quarters profit margins results were impacted by the increase/ decrease sales of ______)
In addition to that, usually within weeks of a new product release someone breaks down the estimated product cost by disassembling it and adding up the parts.
And market analysts will also point to incresed/decreased sales in products and there margins when making predictions.

So while it is not true that costs more equals more profit. In the case of Apple it is generally the rule. The iMac and Powerbook command very generous margins in comparison to the rest of the industry.

[toneloco2881]

While this is all a lot of speculation, I think the ONE thing we should count on is that Apple's Pro applications will be among the first to be available.

Apple's SW division has known about this switch much longer than the development community in general, plus it has all of Apple's resources. That gives them about 18 months, and Apple's resources (2005 FY earnings $1.3 billion).

Do you really think that the FCP team is just waking up to this? Or that Aperture, which is due to be released, is not already being developed cross-platform?
THANK YOU! A voice of reason in this thead...

[shanmui1]

Will the new intel iMac, when it does appear, be considered iMac rev D or iMactel rev A?

Anyway, I hope Apple thinks a mid range machine deserves a mid range graphics card which I feel wasn't the case with the last three iMacs.

[Photorun]

THANK YOU! A voice of reason in this thead...

It's certainly not the people who actually are buying into appleinsider's "rumor," it's hogwash. Mac Mini first, others next. If I'm wrong I'll eat my hat.

[toneloco2881]

It's certainly not the people who actually are buying into appleinsider's "rumor," it's hogwash. Mac Mini first, others next. If I'm wrong I'll eat my hat.
Promise? I'd like it to be video recorded too if you don't mind:)

[pionata]

Sources say at least one of the two aforementioned Intel Macs appears to be based around Intel's upcoming dual-core "Yonah" mobile processor, which is expected to top-out at 2.16 GHz in its initial rev. However, further processor specifications remain largely unconfirmed at this time. (From apple insider)

Why does that sound lame, when compared to 3.8ghz laptop from alienware. We're talking about powerbooks right?

http://www.alienware.com/product_detail_pages/MJ-12_m7700i/mj-12m_features.aspx?SysCode=PC-LT-MJ12M-7700-CP&SubCode=SKU-DEFAULT

Edit:Yes it look like crap but balance between design and power could appen.

With my 800mhz PPC iBook loading games and levels the same speed as a 1.6ghz intel p4 with twice the processor and ram, this seems more like a downgrade to me. Dual-core 2.0 would give the powerbook the reputation it deserve. (Note I do know Im asking for a lot, but still, 2.16ghz max? hurg)

Maybe if they want to compromise speed and design they could make a 3ghz or something. People do like thin computer, but not at any cost.

[ksz]

(From apple insider)

Why does that sound lame, when compared to 3.8ghz laptop from alienware. We're talking about powerbooks right? ...
The Alienware is a desktop replacement machine. It is 2 inches thick, has a starting weight of 10 pounds (more if you add additional hard drives, etc.), and despite its 12-cell 6600 mA battery, no battery life figures are mentioned anywhere on the website (or at least I could not find them). It will probably run for 1 hour on a full charge. It uses a standard desktop Pentium 4 at 3.8 GHz which may be equivalent to about a 2.5 or 2.7 Ghz Pentium M if such a thing existed.

A dual-core Yonah at 2.16 GHz is very fast, offers a total of 4.32 GHz of raw power if you crave megahertz, consumes much less power, allows Apple to shrink the PowerBook by 20-25%, and may provide a battery life of 5+ hours.

I don't know about you, but to me an Apple PowerBook using a dual-core Yonah is FAR more appealing.

[shawnce]

While this is all a lot of speculation, I think the ONE thing we should count on is that Apple's Pro applications will be among the first to be available.

Yes Apple's Pro applications will be one of the first to go native but I just don't see them being ready in 1Q06 (2Q06 is still pushing it). Some many be but I doubt anything close to all. Like I said before Apple may surprise us.

Apple's SW division has known about this switch much longer than the development community in general, plus it has all of Apple's resources. That gives them about 18 months, and Apple's resources (2005 FY earnings $1.3 billion). Actually a fair amount didn't know much before the the general developer community did (ask some of the developers that work at Apple). Yeah Apple has been making large investments in R&D for several years now, however you really cannot grow a developer team much in 12 months and have them actually contribute much to deliverables of this size (especially on existing products, in fact it can easily slow things down because existing engineers have to help bring them up-to-speed). So they have to do the work with mostly the engineering team they had in house at the time they decided to take this route.

Do you really think that the FCP team is just waking up to this? Or that Aperture, which is due to be released, is not already being developed cross-platform? No I didn't say that. I stated, based on my experience as a developer, that projects the size of the pro apps require a decent amount of time and resources to make them fully ready for Intel _and_ test them... hence don't count on them day one in the Intel switch (why I think consumers systems will be the first).

Also factor in that aspects of the ABI, tool chain, etc. are just now getting to a robust and well documented state.

It is very obvious that basically all of Apple's software engineering (including all the great documentation writers) are going all out trying to get Mac OS X and the Apple applications ready for Intel. It has been impressive effort so far.

Still I think folks are jumping the gun and thinking it will happening sooner then it likely will (at least in the market segments that will get it first).

...but that is just my reading of the tea leaves...

[MacIke]

January is just too far ahead of schedule. Even if Apple could, I don't think they would release that soon. Besides, just AFTER Christmas? That doesn't make any sense.


It is not to far ahead. All they promised is that they would be out by June 06.

I predicted on http://www.planetisaac.com that Intel macs will be there by MacWorld San Fran.

I am conviced that Apple could have come out with iNtel Macs last June but could not do it ASAP without others on board.

[ksz]

Actually a fair amount didn't know much before the the general developer community did (ask some of the developers that work at Apple). Yeah Apple has been making large investments in R&D for several years now, however you really cannot grow a developer team much in 12 months and have them actually contribute much to deliverables of this size (especially on existing products, in fact it can easily slow things down because existing engineers have to help bring them up-to-speed). So they have to do the work with mostly the engineering team they had in house at the time they decided to take this route.
If a team at Apple has been secretly compiling OS X on Intel for the past 5 years, it is possible that they have been compiling some number of Apple apps -- pro, prosumer, and consumer alike -- on Intel as well. One does not cross compile the operating system alone to prepare for a contingency. If Apple had a well-organized contingency plan all this time (instead of an ad-hoc group of people who ported to Intel for the fun of it), it is reasonable to think that this team was chartered to cross compile software apps as well.

[shawnce]

(From apple insider)

Why does that sound lame, when compared to 3.8ghz laptop from alienware. We're talking about powerbooks right?

http://www.alienware.com/product_detail_pages/MJ-12_m7700i/mj-12m_features.aspx?SysCode=PC-LT-MJ12M-7700-CP&SubCode=SKU-DEFAULT

The Alienware "laptop" you reference uses a normal desktop class Pentium 4 CPU. This thing would eat batteries especially if you went with a 3.8GHz version. This really isn't a laptop but a luggable that needs to be tethered to wall.

A Pentium M in mid 2 GHz rage could match this thing for a few tasks and would destroy it on battery life. You match it against a system with a dual core Yonah in the low 2 GHz rage and you start to match its computing power while still burning much less power. Then come dual core Merom (late 2006) the P4 will be outclassed even in performance (at least for many tasks).

The P4 and its high clock rates are dead for the foreseeable future.

[shawnce]

If a team at Apple has been secretly compiling OS X on Intel for the past 5 years, it is possible that they have been compiling some number of Apple apps -- pro, prosumer, and consumer alike -- on Intel as well. One does not cross compile the operating system alone to prepare for a contingency. If Apple had a well-organized contingency plan all this time (instead of an ad-hoc group of people who ported to Intel for the fun of it), it is reasonable to think that this team was chartered to cross compile software apps as well.

Apple has stated that they have been doing that with at least the iLife apps. I am not blind to what they have been doing ... I still however stand by my current reading of things.

[pizzach]

25% smaller!? You're a baby, get in my belly!

[ksz]

25% smaller!? You're a baby, get in my belly!
Someone has offered to eat their hat. Are you offering to eat a Powerbook? Make sure you get someone to videotape that event. :p

[rosalindavenue]

Woah! Time to sell my POS powerbook!

The laptop which can't even play Battlestar Galactica DVD without pops and stutters!

Listen, we've all read your 350 posts about the lines on your new powerbook. I think a lot of good members tried to help you with that problem, but you'd rather gripe and exaggerate about it. The post I quote above is a prime example. My much less powerful August 05 ibook plays dvds extremely well, with a quarter of the video ram that the new 15 inch ibook has.

[Beck446]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Beck446
I've read like half of this thread and nobody has given the correct explanation for why this rumor is true: the powerbooks and imacs cost more than the mini or ibooks. More profits.

And more importantly, much higher margins!

Although Apple doesn't give the margin of each of its computers, it is obvious that the powerbook and imac have higher margins than the ibook and mini. It is equally obvious that each is more expensive. So the profit is higher for two reasons: more expensive and higher margins. That is why it is clear Apple will release intel on these first. As for anyone who thinks that they would sell more minis - enough to compensate for the above two observations - is mistaken.

[ksz]

Quote:
Although Apple doesn't give the margin of each of its computers, it is obvious that the powerbook and imac have higher margins than the ibook and mini. It is equally obvious that each is more expensive. So the profit is higher for two reasons: more expensive and higher margins. That is why it is clear Apple will release intel on these first. As for anyone who thinks that they would sell more minis - enough to compensate for the above two observations - is mistaken.
I tend to agree, although not with the same degree of conviction simply because we don't really know.

Some posters are quite convinced the Mac mini will be first. I don't know why. Do Mac mini owners run less software than iMac owners? If software is the main concern and we'll have to stick to Rosetta for a short while, forcing the buyers of low end machines to be further crippled by Rosetta doesn't make sense.

[SiliconAddict]

I don't think the Apple's PRO apps will be ready in 1Q06 and I don't think you want to use those in Rosetta (likely not even possible as I outline below). Even 2Q06 would be pushing it IMHO but Apple may surprise us...




I would NOT be suprised if Apple had their pro apps ready by WWDC.

[SiliconAddict]

Why is everybody complaining? This is great news! I'll be first in line for a shiny powerbook....:)


No I will. . . I've been waiting 3 years for my first Mac. . . I'll mug the person who gets one before me, and leave a few thousand behind in payment of course. :D

[generik]

Listen, we've all read your 350 posts about the lines on your new powerbook. I think a lot of good members tried to help you with that problem, but you'd rather gripe and exaggerate about it. The post I quote above is a prime example. My much less powerful August 05 ibook plays dvds extremely well, with a quarter of the video ram that the new 15 inch ibook has.

How much physical ram you have?

I have 512mb installed, and with the following apps running in the background it just can't keep up

1) Mail.app
2) Azureus
3) 2 Safari Windows
4) 1 Terminal Window
5) 1 preview Window
6) Adium
7) Skype

and of course DVD player.

None of those apps are remotely processor intensive, except for MAYBE azereus, but overall the G4 is really giving a pretty poor showing here!

Bring on the Intel goodness anytime now Apple!

[oskar]

None of those apps are remotely processor intensive, except for MAYBE azereus, but overall the G4 is really giving a pretty poor showing here!

Bring on the Intel goodness anytime now Apple!

Azureus always slows down anything else I'm doing on my PowerBook or on my PowerMac G4. That's why I either use BitTorrent for torrents where I am going to download the complete torrent or I leave Azureus running at night when I'm not at my computer. That's the only thing really slowing you down.

[pionata]

The Alienware is a desktop replacement machine. It is 2 inches thick, has a starting weight of 10 pounds (more if you add additional hard drives, etc.), and despite its 12-cell 6600 mA battery, no battery life figures are mentioned anywhere on the website (or at least I could not find them). It will probably run for 1 hour on a full charge. It uses a standard desktop Pentium 4 at 3.8 GHz which may be equivalent to about a 2.5 or 2.7 Ghz Pentium M if such a thing existed.

A dual-core Yonah at 2.16 GHz is very fast, offers a total of 4.32 GHz of raw power if you crave megahertz, consumes much less power, allows Apple to shrink the PowerBook by 20-25%, and may provide a battery life of 5+ hours.

I don't know about you, but to me an Apple PowerBook using a dual-core Yonah is FAR more appealing.

Sorry, I didnt get that part about the dual-core. So the top end powerbook could be dual-core 2.16, NICE.

If that is the case I'll be getting one instead of a dual-core powermac.

edit: I guess I was so shocked on the "only 2.16!" that I forgot to read my own quote... lol

[kainjow]

P.S. Anyone with a iSight iMac - check this out..
--Apparently the Photobooth App is the FIRST officially released INTEL AND POWERPC compiled program. Just go to get info about that app and apparently it will tell you that it was created using a universay bianary and able to run natively on both systems. I thought this was pretty dag on cool.....;)
Actually, if you want to get technical, Xcode 2.1, released a while ago, was a universal binary :D

[runninmac]

No I will. . . I've been waiting 3 years for my first Mac. . . I'll mug the person who gets one before me, and leave a few thousand behind in payment of course. :D

I would NOT be suprised if Apple had their pro apps ready by WWDC.

Well 2 years for me but I may mugg a few people that are ahead of me on a wating list on the apple store:cool:

I would also not be surprised. If they didn't I would actually be rather dissapointed. They should have all the pro apps. Theyve had more time than anyone and they had the apple dev. team on there side.

After I read the 10 pages of my thread ive noticed a few things
40% of the people are way to negative
10% are nutreal (yay for you people)
35% seem to be way to positive
And the remaining 15% are just spaming the board

I would do examples but its 2:43 in the moarning and im probobly not making sense right now.

[iEric]

wooo powerbooks. probably will wait till rev b OR like maybe 2 weeks after people start receiving them. But usually when I buy rev a, nothing bad happens. Wierd.

on another note, I just went to the states and went a whole bunch of money at Hollister and Abercrombie. So...maybe I won't get it for a while. Maybe till the summer when I"m working full time again.

[aafuss1]

The Intel Powerbooks may not have 802.11n, but perhaps WiMax (seems Intel is pushing it) -unless Apple releases a new generation of Airport cards/AE/BT 2.0 modules for the Intel Mac's.

It won't have the Centrino logo (as Apple currently doesn't use the 2915/3945ABG from Intel)

[ScubaDuc]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Beck446
I've read like half of this thread and nobody has given the correct explanation for why this rumor is true: the powerbooks and imacs cost more than the mini or ibooks. More profits.



Although Apple doesn't give the margin of each of its computers, it is obvious that the powerbook and imac have higher margins than the ibook and mini. It is equally obvious that each is more expensive. So the profit is higher for two reasons: more expensive and higher margins. That is why it is clear Apple will release intel on these first. As for anyone who thinks that they would sell more minis - enough to compensate for the above two observations - is mistaken.


It is generally a mistake to look at product margins on individual lines because you are not considering synergies between models. Consider Nokia, analysts have beaten the stock price down because of the new, low cost phones for the developing markets thinking that it would reduce margins. However, cheap phones provide the economies of scale to make even higher margins on the top lines. Nokia's revenue has been increasing despite its luckluster performance in sales. Imac, powerbook, ibook and mini all have some common points. They all require low heat processors and perhaps the the Yonah chips will be pin compatible aloowing to use the same basic motherboard design although with different graphics, HDs, etc.

I think what is important in the Appleinsider rumors is that by spring we'll have most of the Mac line on Intel already. It really does not matter which model they start with, although I hope for a new Mini being the i-Mac a bit too "obvious" to sneak past custom..:rolleyes:

[unage85]

I still can't get over the 20-25% thinner bit! It's so thin and elegant now! 1 inches and made of Aluminum... NO ONE in the industry does it with Apple's grace. Can Apple seriously top the current design?? If it can be done it goes to show how old the G4 really is in terms of size!!

[unage85]

Will the new intel iMac, when it does appear, be considered iMac rev D or iMactel rev A?

Anyway, I hope Apple thinks a mid range machine deserves a mid range graphics card which I feel wasn't the case with the last three iMacs.

That's actually a good point. In the history of Apple's hardware, have they ever reused a case design with a completely new processor inside?? They probably have but I can't seem to think of an example!?!

[iMeowbot]

That's actually a good point. In the history of Apple's hardware, have they ever reused a case design with a completely new processor inside?? They probably have but I can't seem to think of an example!?!

Sure. The early Power Mac models were near twins of their Centris/Quadra counterparts, the PowerBook 190 and 5300 had the same case, and so on.

More recently, the iBook G3 (white version, not the Fisher Price handbag) changed little when it got a G4.

[seb_carley]

That's actually a good point. In the history of Apple's hardware, have they ever reused a case design with a completely new processor inside?? They probably have but I can't seem to think of an example!?!

I can:)
The first G3s (233/266 Mhz IIRC) came in the same beige case as the 7xxx series they replaced. The tower used a slightly shorter version of the 8/9xxx tower.

I'd personally be expecting all Apple software (consumer + Pro) to be ready within days/weeks of the Intel launch (whichever model comes first) and some big names (Adobe, Microsoft) to be on stage with steve announcing the soon to be released versions of CS, MS Office, VPC.

Here's hoping for a happy day...

[generik]

I still can't get over the 20-25% thinner bit! It's so thin and elegant now! 1 inches and made of Aluminum... NO ONE in the industry does it with Apple's grace. Can Apple seriously top the current design?? If it can be done it goes to show how old the G4 really is in terms of size!!

They will probably switch for a new case design though, nothing screams "buy buy buy" more than a *new case*! :D

[al3000]

I knew this would happen, I only just got my first mac...a new PB!

[JohnEZ]

I'm a day late with this posting, please do excuse me for that.

But anyway, as far as I'm concerned, the thought that the PowerBook is a "Pro Laptop" is a misconception. I've always been told by people in the Mac world that this is the way it was, and that the iBook was the consumer/student computer.

With all due respect, I disagree. I've been researching colleges recently, and all of the ones that support Macintosh (the number was surprisingly high, actually) highly recommend the PowerBook. Funny that the "student" machine isn't the one necessarily recommended for students. Granted, it is being used in hope of a professional future; but then, what about all the people who have PowerBooks who don't need to use them for work on a regular basis? I'd wager that most people who own PBs don't do it for professional reasons.

Just my thoughts,
-John

[mdavey]

I don't think the Apple's PRO apps will be ready in 1Q06

Whyever not? Apple product development teams will have had at least 6 months to compile their apps for Intel processors and that is assuming that they didn't hear about the move to Intel until just before Jobs announced it to the world.

I would guess that the vast majority of the Pro apps are built with Xcode and that Apple use best practices such as automated continuous integration builds so it would be trivial to add Intel as a build target.

That wouldn't magically create a working build for Intel CPUs, but it would provide visibility to the developers as to what is stopping each app from compiling cleanly. Also, knowing what is stopping the app from building is not the same as knowing how to fix it. However, I would expect a range of issues - some apps will be almost trivial to fix (Jobs made a big deal about one of the 3rd party maths simulators being migrated with just two hours work - albeit probably from a very skilled team).

So, I would expect that some of the Pro apps will be trivial to fix for a Universal binary, some will be a fair amount of work and a couple will be very challenging. This still means that Apple will have most of their Pro apps ready for Q1 (and may even have all of them ready now).

[JCT]

I'll bet the Pro Apps are either ready or very, very close. This switch has been in the works for years and the real question is whether it was planned as an "out" if IBM fell behind or as part of a more long-term plan. I remain very impressed at how Apple kept this under wraps.

I am always surprised at the "lead" times for these projects. For example, Aperture took over 3 years to develop --- of course, during that time the Intel migration was planned for, so I am sure that somewhere in the building in Cupertino someone has a fast Intel Mac pushing those big RAW files around using Aperture.

Has that stopped me from ordering a loaded Quad? Nope, I'll ride out the first Intel PowerMac Rev or two, but I may replace the old Lapzilla PB with an Intel version after the dust settles, ;) .

Actually the difficulty I am having is in making a recommendation to one of my grad students who has gotten hooked by using one of the lab iBooks after her PC laptop croaked. Can't decide whether she should wait for one of the rumored 13" widescreens... ARGH.

JT

[bigandy]

Whyever not? Apple product development teams will have had at least 6 months to compile their apps for Intel processors and that is assuming that they didn't hear about the move to Intel until just before Jobs announced it to the world.

I would guess that the vast majority of the Pro apps are built with Xcode and that Apple use best practices such as automated continuous integration builds so it would be trivial to add Intel as a build target.

That wouldn't magically create a working build for Intel CPUs, but it would provide visibility to the developers as to what is stopping each app from compiling cleanly. Also, knowing what is stopping the app form building is not the same as knowing how to fix it. However, I would expect a range of issues - some apps will be almost trivial to fix (Jobs made a big deal about one of the 3rd party maths simulators being migrated with just two hours work - albeit probably from a very skilled team).

So, I would expect that some of the Pro apps will be trivial to fix for a Universal binary, some will be a fair amount of work and a couple will be very challenging. This still means that Apple will have most of their Pro apps ready for Q1 (and may even have all of them ready now).


i'm thinking that most of the Apple Pro Apps have been compiled for OSX86 for many months, if not at least a year now. they know without them it'll be hard to pitch a new machine on the platform, so i'd bet good money they'll come out when the first intel powered Mac surfaces...

[ksz]

But anyway, as far as I'm concerned, the thought that the PowerBook is a "Pro Laptop" is a misconception. I've always been told by people in the Mac world that this is the way it was, and that the iBook was the consumer/student computer.

With all due respect, I disagree.
...
I think you're right. My 15" PowerBook at 1.25 GHz and 1.5 GB memory crashes when I try to edit a 60-minute DV with iMovie. I ended up taking the project to a family member's dual processor G4 which crunched through the project almost effortlessly. The existing PowerBook, in my opinion, is really not the powerhouse it is cracked up to be. A dual-core Yonah-based PowerBook with a 533MHz bus, on the other hand, may well be a serious contender.

[gekko513]

Bravo 840quadra :D

Anyway...

What I thought the MacMini was rumored to be the first to get updated?
Now its the iMac??

Why!? that means the new version would have the shortest lifespan ever. It's just got DDR2 and PCI-express... and a speed-bump to last all of 3 months? :confused:

These rumors are getting daft.



Hmmmmm.... why exactley?
The Mac mini can still be the first to be updated, but if Apple keeps it's current strategy they will just start shipping it with Intel processors without telling anyone about it. ;)

[ksz]

I'll bet the Pro Apps are either ready or very, very close. This switch has been in the works for years and the real question is whether it was planned as an "out" if IBM fell behind or as part of a more long-term plan. I remain very impressed at how Apple kept this under wraps.
With the exception of some senior managers, we know almost nothing about the Apple org chart. Who are the functional managers, technical leads, and directors? Who is the engineering manager for Aperture? For FCP? For iLife? Apple is understandably very protective of such information.

Because of Apple's focus on innovation, ideas have to be guarded. Apple has likely instituted effective measures to safeguard those ideas until IP Protections are in place or until a product sees the light of day. Rumors, it seems, are a constant thorn.

I am always surprised at the "lead" times for these projects. For example, Aperture took over 3 years to develop --- of course, during that time the Intel migration was planned for, so I am sure that somewhere in the building in Cupertino someone has a fast Intel Mac pushing those big RAW files around using Aperture.
If Aperture took 3 years (and I don't doubt it), it is really impressive how well the project was guarded. I plan to buy a Nikon D200 in January and will switch almost entirely to RAW if Aperture can truly turn RAW into a piece of cake.

Has that stopped me from ordering a loaded Quad? Nope, I'll ride out the first Intel PowerMac Rev or two, but I may replace the old Lapzilla PB with an Intel version after the dust settles, ;) .
I am going to wait until Macworld San Fran before making my next purchase decision. Apple's strategy for 2006 may be more fully disclosed at that time, and I will make a decision on that information.

Actually the difficulty I am having is in making a recommendation to one of my grad students who has gotten hooked by using one of the lab iBooks after her PC laptop croaked. Can't decide whether she should wait for one of the rumored 13" widescreens... ARGH.

January is just around the corner. If she can wait, it might be well worth it.

[panda]

They will probably switch for a new case design though, nothing screams "buy buy buy" more than a *new case*! :D
it would seem that apple's prime concern is selling as many computers as possible.
the risk with the transition and the first anoncement thereto is that sales slow. the worst case scenario being that sales slow lots, for a long time. in my opinion the key strategy behind the transition is based on; how to to avoid a big dropoff in sales?
i think the sales optimization can be broken down into 2 parts: software compatability and transition time.

1. software compatability
one way to minimize slower sales, is to make sure that ppcs remain useful even beyond the transition. this would mean continuing to upgrade them, but most importantly, ensuring software compatability. if i knew that a powerbook bought today, would continue to be supported for the next few years, with new releases of existing software (preferably x86 and ppc compatible), then buying, or owning a ppc now, is quite desirable. (is it indeed the case that upcoming software releases from apple and others are intended to be compatible for both platforms???). we know that rosetta allows an x86 to run ppc software, but will new versions of software be made to run on ppc as well as x86??? CAN ANYONE CLARIFY THIS???
software compatability is also key, for it allows larger organizations running a number of macs, to transition slowly, by evolviing over time to the new platform, rather than having to make a decision to be either ppc, or x86 and to make a costly transition in one go.

2. transition time
ever since the transition announcement, the question has been; buy now or wait (as pointed out above, software compatability, if it exists, can ease the hesitance to buy now)?
the longer the time lapse since the announcement, the greater the reluctance to buy. once the first intelmacs appear, the reluctance to buy ppc will increase much much more. that being the case, it would make sense to do two things: transition the computers with the biggest impact on the bottom line first (in other words transition the most profitable computer segments first and perhaps those that have suffered most by declining sales due to the announcement)... and make sure that the others follow on as quickly as possible. if it is the case that pbooks and imacs are the most valuable segment, then transition them first.

in this scenario, ensuring that the transition time for the whole range, once the first macintels ship, is kept as short as possible, is the critical factor.

i would not be overly concerned about which programs have been converted to run on the x86 first, because, most users will gladly trade off a slower performance, using rosetta for some time, while being secure in the knowledge that once the software is updated, that they are using a computer that will run faster and be forward compatible for many years to come.

as for any form factor changes? certainly, if you want to make a big ado about the transition, then new designs are the way to go.

:)

[GonzoRob]

at a guess , what speed processors do people think Apple will use?
With intel macs, all I want is something that can run Steam via winex ;)
Also a 13" PB with a faster GFX card would be fantastic - i'd buy one in a shot..

Rob

[ksz]

2. transition time
ever since the transition announcement, the question has been; buy now or wait (as pointed out above, software compatability, if it exists, can ease the hesitance to buy now)?
the longer the time lapse since the announcement, the greater the reluctance to buy. once the first intelmacs appear, the reluctance to buy ppc will increase much much more. that being the case, it would make sense to do two things: transition the computers with the biggest impact on the bottom line first (in other words transition the most profitable computer segments first and perhaps those that have suffered most by declining sales due to the announcement)... and make sure that the others follow on as quickly as possible. if it is the case that pbooks and imacs are the most valuable segment, then transition them first.

in this scenario, ensuring that the transition time for the whole range, once the first macintels ship, is kept as short as possible, is the critical factor.

i would not be overly concerned about which programs have been converted to run on the x86 first, because, most users will gladly trade off a slower performance, using rosetta for some time, while being secure in the knowledge that once the software is updated, that they are using a computer that will run faster and be forward compatible for many years to come.

Well said. Actually, quite well said.

[Roller]

I still can't get over the 20-25% thinner bit! It's so thin and elegant now! 1 inches and made of Aluminum... NO ONE in the industry does it with Apple's grace. Can Apple seriously top the current design?? If it can be done it goes to show how old the G4 really is in terms of size!!

I wouldn't mind a thinner, lighter PowerBook, but it's going to be hard to do that and maintain overall rigidity.

Also, although I liked the way my 15" aluminum PB looked new, it was pretty scratched up after only a few months - my old Lombard looked better after a few years. I also hope that they can come up with a better latch.

[AidenShaw]

at a guess, what speed processors do people think Apple will use?
The same speed chips that HP, Dell, Lenovo and everyone else is running!

Intel&#174; Pentium&#174; Processor EE 840, 3.20GHz, Dual Core, HT, 2X1MB, 800 [add $1,139]
Intel&#174; Pentium&#174; D Processor 840, 3.20GHz, DC, 2X 1MB L2, 800MHz [add $509]
Intel&#174; Pentium&#174; D Processor 830, 3.00GHz, DC, 2X 1MB L2, 800MHz [add $279]
Intel&#174; Pentium&#174; D Processor 820, 2.80GHz, DC, 2X 1MB L2, 800MHz [add $179]
Intel&#174; Pentium&#174; 4 Processor 670, 3.80GHz, 2MB L2, 800MHz [add $549]
Intel&#174; Pentium&#174; 4 Processor 660, 3.60GHz, 2MB L2, 800MHz [add $349]
Intel&#174; Pentium&#174; 4 Processor 650, 3.40GHz, 2MB L2, 800MHz [add $199]
Intel&#174; Pentium&#174; 4 Processor 640, 3.20GHz, 2MB L2, 800MHz [add $59]
Intel&#174; Pentium&#174; 4 Processor 630, 3.00GHz, 2MB L2, 800MHz [Included in Price]


Dual-Core Intel&#174; Xeon™ Processor 2.80GHz, 2x2MB L2 cache [add $1,150]
Intel&#174; Xeon™ Processor 3.80GHz, 2MB L2 Cache [add $930]
Intel&#174; Xeon™ Processor 3.60GHz, 2MB L2 Cache [add $520]
Intel&#174; Xeon™ Processor 3.40GHz, 2MB L2 Cache [add $260]
Intel&#174; Xeon™ Processor 3.20GHz, 2MB L2 Cache [add $130]
Intel&#174; Xeon™ Processor 3.00GHz, 2MB L2 Cache [add $60]
Intel&#174; Xeon™ Processor 2.80GHz, 2MB L2 Cache [Included in Price]


Intel&#174; Pentium&#174; M Processor 740 (1.73GHz) 14.1 SXGA+, RADEON X300 [add $110]
Intel&#174; Pentium&#174; M Processor 750 (1.86GHz) 14.1 SXGA+, RADEON X300 [add $160]
Intel&#174; Pentium&#174; M Processor 760 (2.00GHz) 14.1 SXGA+, RADEON X300 [add $240]
Intel&#174; Pentium&#174; M Processor 770 (2.13GHz) 14.1 SXGA+, RADEON X300 [add $390]

I'm not claiming that Apple will use Netburst-based chips, I'm just showing that most of the current Intel vendors have an option for each speed chip. Wonder if Apple will stick to good/better/best/ultimate or if a BTO system will have a menu option for chip speeds.

BTW, on the first (a Dell PW380) it only costs $279 to upgrade from a 3GHz single core to 3GHz dual core, not bad.


Intel has a flash movie comparing single core, hyper-threading and dual core - http://www.intel.com/personal/desktop/pentium_d/demo/popup/demo.htm

[Roller]

1. software compatability
(is it indeed the case that upcoming software releases from apple and others are intended to be compatible for both platforms???). we know that rosetta allows an x86 to run ppc software, but will new versions of software be made to run on ppc as well as x86??? CAN ANYONE CLARIFY THIS???


If it's as easy to compile universal binaries as we've been told, it'd be silly for vendors not to do that for the next three or four years, at least. The installed base will be mostly PPC for a long time, so anyone who released an Intel-only software would be giving up a large potential market.

2. transition time
ever since the transition announcement, the question has been; buy now or wait (as pointed out above, software compatability, if it exists, can ease the hesitance to buy now)?
the longer the time lapse since the announcement, the greater the reluctance to buy. once the first intelmacs appear, the reluctance to buy ppc will increase much much more. that being the case, it would make sense to do two things: transition the computers with the biggest impact on the bottom line first (in other words transition the most profitable computer segments first and perhaps those that have suffered most by declining sales due to the announcement)... and make sure that the others follow on as quickly as possible. if it is the case that pbooks and imacs are the most valuable segment, then transition them first.

I agree that they'll shoot for a fast transition, doing one or two product lines at a time - Apple probably doesn't have the resources for an all-at-once switch. However, it wouldn't surprise me if the entire transition goes more quickly that we expected.

[AidenShaw]

If it's as easy to compile universal binaries as we've been told....
Well...
http://news.com.com/Chizen+on+Apple+MacTel+switch+not+easy/2100-1046_3-5844899.html

Adobe CEO Bruce Chizen recently met with CNET News.com.... During the interview, he offered insights into Apple Computer's switch to Intel chips.

Q: I wanted to get your take on Apple's switch to Intel. How difficult is the process of migrating apps from platform to platform?

Chizen: Steve (Jobs) likes to trivialize the process and make it seem easy, but moving the apps over is not that easy...Getting over to MacTel is work.

[Roller]

Well...

Yes, but once you've done the work of getting your software to run on Intel, it shouldn't be that difficult to also keep it running on PPC.