Intel iBook at MWSF (January) 2006?

[efoto]

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

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

and

But overall Mac OS X o Intel simply feels zippier.

I'm glad that someone can type words properly :p

[iEric]

sounds good.

what i really want to see is the comparison of the new looks for the intel iBook and intel Powerbook.

that's my number one reason to i buy apple..cause it looks so damn good.

[generik]

Java runs fast on Intel macs?

Great!

Eclipse is giving me fits, and to think I use it often in the course of my work :(

[SiliconAddict]

A recent ZDNet article demonstrated that running iTunes in Rosetta imposes a 70% performance hit on iTunes encoding.
.


Yah because prereleased OS's loaded on hardware they weren't designed for are the ultimate in benchmark accuracy. :rolleyes:

Guess what? I can say with a certain air of certainty that the first X86 PowerBooks are going to be dual cores. Now think about that. The tests they ran were single cores. Do you think Apple would be stupid enough not to take adv of an extran CPU core to dedicate to Rosetta? Now to a certain extent you are right. Anything that is computationally a heavy hitter is going to pank Rosetta but I think you and everyone else needs to stop throwing figures around. Because right now they are all BS. Even the ones on the development boxes. Everything changes in 2006. Do not trust numbers being throw around right now.

[SiliconAddict]

sounds good.

what i really want to see is the comparison of the new looks for the intel iBook and intel Powerbook.

that's my number one reason to i buy apple..cause it looks so damn good.


Then buy a dead POwerBook off of e-bay why don't ya. It will save you thousands. :rolleyes: Sorry but I still can't believe people buy computers based on their look. Its so...childish.....for lack of a better word.

Don't get me wrong I don't want some uggo POC system but putting looks as the #1 priority seems wrong.

[emotion]

Mebbe they'll use the ULV dothan which runs at a lower clock speed to keep this in step with the powerbooks which will still be using g4?

They can have very thin ibooks then and still have them being percieved as lower in spec that pbooks

[golfstud]

I think the powerbook track is off. I think MAC MINI's get updated, either INTEL or PPC...Front Row on the Mini is the next thing for all those HD TVs being bought over the holidays and Super Bowl time. I can see a SUPER MINI with the new remote and wireless keyboard included...with componant out or even HDMI(althought a DVI is fine just get a cable converter)

ILIFE 06 with something cool we haven't thought of...with FrontRow and PhotoBooth for everyone else.

The one more thing...now that has got me...Intel Ibooks maybe?
I will tell you this..if the Intel thing happens in Jan..then it will have to hit the pro lines before the end of the year...and I dont' see that happening.
The last 2 years Apple has fallen into a fairly predictable pattern...Consumer Software and new hardware at MWSF, Springtime Special Update of ITUNES/IPOD, Pro Video Update at NAB, Pro CPUs at Developers Conferance or just after. Ibook and Emac(Mini) updates late summer before school. Imac-Ipod/Itunes again in Fall.

Having said this the POWERBOOKS need to get better sooner than later. OH, I'm getting a copy of APERTURE soon, I wonder if this is coded for PPC and INTEL..someone should snoop in on the code and see...if it is UNIVERSAL that would lend a hint.

Hmmmm..I'm glad I got my ticket to the keynote...should be fun. I just hope TIME Magazine doesn't spoil the suprise..I really hate that.

[poundsmack]

the question is will it be the yohan chips or the current pentium M's? or mabey something completly different.....like an Itanium iBook, i squared :D :rolleyes:

[dblissmn]

If ZDNet's latest article is anything to go back (the hacked OS X on a Pentium feature), the OS is ready, the only real issue is going to be the lack of Altivec in Rosetta, and Intel seems to be roaring ahead of schedule on transitioning to 65 nanometer chip fab. Yonah, on the Napa motherboard, will be launched in standard performance single core and high performance dual core in early January -- only the ultra low voltage version (presumably for subnotebooks) will have to wait.

Under the circumstances, why would Apple wait? Time to move all the mobile lines to Intel, and by proxy that also includes the Mac Mini. A subnotebook, the only thing held up on Yonah, is the only thing Apple currently lacks in their lineup anyway. Dual core Powerbooks (which will have just enough oomph to deal with the lack of Altivec in Rosetta for PPC-compiled Adobe stuff without a major slowdown, but will make the iApps, Office, and non-Altivec programs like Stata and SPSS all do well), maybe even a dual core mini, and single-core iBooks. The more progressive developers like Stata will have optimizations out very quickly. The presence of a dual-precision SIMD on Yonah is further reason to move quickly; within months, graphics and even more notably statistical apps (which can't use single-precision Altivec) will get a huge new lease on life.

G5 is a different story. No immediate rush there, but I'll bet the iMac goes over by fall.

I say Apple is ready on software just on the basis of ZDNet's slightly ethically-challenged but interesting story about running hacked OS X on a Pentium and finding it as fast if not faster in the OS, while, given the iTunes test, still having obvious trouble in Altivec. But on a dual-core, no one should notice too much.

[macrumors12345]

Do not trust numbers being throw around right now.

Yes, numbers are subject to revision. However, if one insists upon drawing *any* conclusions at all (which is pretty much everyone on this board), the 70% performance hit for encoding is at least based on real data. The 30% figure is just being pulled out of thin air, based on something Jobs mentioned in passing in a keynote.

Guess what, Jobs has also told you that PowerPC is up to twice as fast as Intel. So if we are going to just base our suppositions on stuff Jobs has said in keynotes, then the Intel chips will be 50% slower than PPC and take another 30% performance hit for Rosetta, and overall they will run PPC apps at only 35% of native PowerPC speed. Man, you better stay away from those Intel iBooks...they're going to be real dogs.

[macrumors12345]

Dual core Powerbooks (which will have just enough oomph to deal with the lack of Altivec in Rosetta for PPC-compiled Adobe stuff without a major slowdown, but will make the iApps, Office, and non-Altivec programs like Stata and SPSS all do well)

Uh, we have *no* indication that Stata will run well under Rosetta. To the contrary, many have been saying that floating point intensive apps (e.g., Stata) could get as much as a 80-90% performance hit from being emulated!

I definitely will not buy any x86 iBook before benchmarking Stata on x86 hardware in the Apple Store. If it runs at anything less than 50% of the speed of a 1.3 Ghz G4, I will not be buying until Stata releases a Universal binary (no matter how fast it runs all those other Universal binaries).

The more progressive developers like Stata will have optimizations out very quickly.

Hmmm...do you actually use Stata? Stata devs still haven't made any optimizations for the G5, and that's been out for 2.5 years now. (Heck, as far as I know they haven't made any optimizations for the P4, and that's been out for 5 years.)

Stata is currently developed in CodeWarrior. They will have to port it over to XCode before they can compile a Universal binary. That is not a trivial amount of work. I will be shocked if a Stata Universal binary is released in January. It will come, but it will take a while.

[AidenShaw]

Don't beat on the Centrino-M, it is surprisingly quick for its money actually.. and that's partly why Intel discontinued it. It was really cannibalising their PM sales.
Funny, for being "discontinued" they're still promoting it... http://www.intel.com/products/processor/celeron_m/index.htm

http://www.intel.com/products/i/browse/cmp62w.gif

Do you have any links to news about it being dropped?

[AidenShaw]

The Yonah is available in dual core and single core variants, could Apple use the dual for the PB and use the single for the iB?
Yonah is not yet available, and the single core is on the roadmap for after the dual-core.

Apple telling developers to code for Dothan (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=1740048&postcount=64), so Yonah PBs and Dothan IBs is possible soon.

[gkarris]

Actually, I believe that this rumor is wrong. In January, we will finally see the G5 Powerbooks...

The new 3.0 GHz G5 Powerbook, only 6" thin and a light 10 lbs...

Which reality are we in???

(thought no mac forum is complete without the proverbial mention of the upcoming G5 PowerBook...)

[i_am_a_cow]

You shouldn't be surprised. x86 hardware has been engineered so many times over again and again that it isn't hard anymore to come up with generic x86 hardware.

Also if I remember correctly Steve Jobs said that Mac OS X has always run on X86 since it was first created. It was designed to run on both architectures. It isn't surprising as it is POSIX compliant...

[VIREBEL661]

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

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

Yep.... I'm still undecided on the whole Intel thing - I'm a fan of PPC technology....... Bummer it's potential seems stunted in the portable space... I would've loved to see a dual core G4 with a faster bus..

[AidenShaw]

Also if I remember correctly Steve Jobs said that Mac OS X has always run on X86 since it was first created. It was designed to run on both architectures. It isn't surprising as it is POSIX compliant...
First of all, being "POSIX compliant" is orthogonal to being multi-platform - there's just no connection between an implementation being portable and the APIs/UI being POSIX certified.

Windows runs (or has) on many more architectures than OSX (including both x86 and PPC, as well as ARM, Alpha, MIPS...) - but any POSIX compliance in Windows is open to interpretation.

Second, OSX is not POSIX compliant. "Okay about your OSX worship, look, it claims to be UNIX, but it is not POSIX compliant. " (http://forums.macrumors.com/archive/index.php/t-1597.html) and http://get.posixcertified.ieee.org/cert_prodlist.tpl?CALLER=index.tpl

[teddy07x]

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


Problem is, it´ll feature a Dothan. Prolly@1.7 and 2.0 ghz.
With it´s 30% slimmer design and 13" wide it should be attempting for most students and non-pro consumers.
January will most likely also give us a pb sporting the 7448. Not much of a speedbump I´m guessing. But the larger cache will give it a 25% speed increase. PowerBooks will NOT have iSight, I guarantuee you! :)

[jade]

Yah because prereleased OS's loaded on hardware they weren't designed for are the ultimate in benchmark accuracy. :rolleyes:

Guess what? I can say with a certain air of certainty that the first X86 PowerBooks are going to be dual cores. Now think about that. The tests they ran were single cores. Do you think Apple would be stupid enough not to take adv of an extran CPU core to dedicate to Rosetta? Now to a certain extent you are right. Anything that is computationally a heavy hitter is going to pank Rosetta but I think you and everyone else needs to stop throwing figures around. Because right now they are all BS. Even the ones on the development boxes. Everything changes in 2006. Do not trust numbers being throw around right now.

Well I am excited about whatever intel 'books come out. Based on all the "illegal" reviews Apple is very on track and overall performance is good. Wh knows how many revisions these reviews are behind (we all know apple software engineers are on speed) the Production version should be more than ready for primetime upon release.

[teddy07x]

Yep.... I'm still undecided on the whole Intel thing - I'm a fan of PPC technology....... Bummer it's potential seems stunted in the portable space... I would've loved to see a dual core G4 with a faster bus..

YOU ARE NOT GONNA SEE THAT! :)

Anyway, lets wait and see what kind of GFX solution mac opts for.
I´m guessing they´ll port it differently than on a PC, giving it more muscels for games...
Like the new GFX cards to, they lend some memory from the main memory. :)

[generik]

15" Beta PowerBook (7448 prototype) G4 1.92ghz, 2GB RAM, 100GB 7200RPM Special delivery from DS.

You are still onto that eh?

Come on!

[teddy07x]

15" Beta PowerBook (7448 prototype) G4 1.92ghz, 2GB RAM, 100GB 7200RPM Special delivery from DS.

You are still onto that eh?

Come on!

Come on what? post pictures? NO WAY!
gimme ur email addy and I´ll send you some...
Posting them here will give me no future goodies! :)
send me ur email bro! =)

[ksz]

Yonah is not yet available, and the single core is on the roadmap for after the dual-core.

Apple telling developers to code for Dothan (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=1740048&postcount=64), so Yonah PBs and Dothan IBs is possible soon.
Exactly. Unless Intel has moved up its plans for the single core Yonah, it is going to trail the dual core version. An Intel-based iBook, if one is to be released in Jan/Feb, will most likely use Dothan (existing 2nd-generation Pentium-M) with a 533MHz FSB.

[reflex]

I thought every PC user (and most Mac users in this forum) out there criticized Macs for not having the best GFX...

No, only Mac users complain about graphics chips in Mac laptops :)

now reality sets in...MOST PC laptops have, indeed, IIG...therefore, MOST PC laptops have worse GFX than even older iBook and PB offers...

A lot of PC laptops have integrated graphics, a lot of them don't. But in a lot of cases they don't need anything better either, as the operating system (be it Windows or Linux) doesn't use 3D for anything. The most important reason to have a good graphics chip on a PC laptop is to play games.

What does suck about integrated graphics is that they use part of the system memory, but what's 32MB out of 512MB anyway.

Note: I do prefer a good graphics chip ... that's why I chose a laptop with a Radeon 9700 :D

[cyclotron451]

dead post! until I learn a bit of layout skills...

but I think the intelliBook will likely rollout with the "Dohan" Pentium M (735) 1.7GHz FSB 400MHz fitting the performance and $999 price points. The Yonahs are a bit too power/dollar hungry initially.

[ezekielrage_99]

My theory for January 06

We will see Dual Core Intel Processors in the PowerBooks, Single Core Intel Processors in the iBooks and a cool Intel Mac Mini, I think in january we will see the end of ALL G4 systems and a big howdy to the Intel Apple age.

Because lets face it you can't upgrade the iBooks without the PowerBooks, and an Intel Mac Mini would also usher in the new year so very nicely.

[Lacero]

My theory...we will see Dual Core Intel Processors in the PowerBooks...
I still postulate the theory the Earth is flat and the moon is made of cheese.

[NickFalk]

Because lets face it you can't upgrade the iBooks without the PowerBooks, and an Intel Mac Mini would also usher in the new year so very nicely.
As I mentioned earlier in this thread, of course Apple could. As long as hardly any Pro applications will run natively or at all on intel iBooks there isn't really any other portable pro-alternative than the Powerbooks. My guess is that we'll see these upgraded at the WWDC.

[NickFalk]

I still postulate the theory the Earth is flat and the moon is made of cheese.
What kind of cheese?

[ezekielrage_99]

mmmmm cheese:D

[NickFalk]

Just thinking out loud here, but wouldn't the moon melt if it was made from cheese?

[ezekielrage_99]

It's more of a matter of when not if when it comes to all the Apple stuff getting the Intel inside. Either way we are going to see at least 2 Apple products with some magical type of Intel CPU by June 06.

The million dollar question is which already great Apple product will get the Intel upgrade first:confused:

[Digitalzoom]

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


I totally agree with you - iBook will have Celeron M CPUs no doubt about this - still way better than any G4. Pentium M for Powerbooks.

Everytime I have purchased a G4 based Apple product I kinda feel I've been ripped off. The G4 is a slow CPU by today's standards.

Bring on the Intels - I know a few people who will switch as soon as the intels arrive.

[kirk26]

Then buy a dead POwerBook off of e-bay why don't ya. It will save you thousands. :rolleyes: Sorry but I still can't believe people buy computers based on their look. Its so...childish.....for lack of a better word.

Don't get me wrong I don't want some uggo POC system but putting looks as the #1 priority seems wrong.

You just explained why most Mac users buy Powerbooks. Looks over performance. Bravo!

[NickFalk]

Then buy a dead POwerBook off of e-bay why don't ya. It will save you thousands. :rolleyes: Sorry but I still can't believe people buy computers based on their look. Its so...childish.....for lack of a better word.
I think that's fairly arrogant. Why I certainly don't base my computer purchases on looks either others might have different priorities. A lot of people will find almost all existing hardware good "enough" and then they might be willing to buy based on looks just as likely as any other "quality". I mean, it's not like everyone buys the car that gives best performance for the money is it?

[dr_lha]

Second, OSX is not POSIX compliant. "Okay about your OSX worship, look, it claims to be UNIX, but it is not POSIX compliant. " (http://forums.macrumors.com/archive/index.php/t-1597.html) and http://get.posixcertified.ieee.org/cert_prodlist.tpl?CALLER=index.tpl

I think you're a little off base with those links, especially the first one which is almost 4 years old (I have no idea what the 2nd one is for). One thing that Apple have definitely done, and I have noticed it as a Unix hacker thats had a Mac since Jaguar, is massivily improve OSX's POSIX compliance since January 2002, for example POSIX threads were added to Jaguar, a large step towards POSIX compliance. I believe the current situation with Tiger is that OSX is POSIX compliant, but not POSIX certified (which basically means Apple haven't given a bunch of money to IEEE).

[Tilmitt]

I say....3.0Ghz Dual Dual Core PowerMac G5's and 2.3Ghz iMac G5! And finally...after IBM's annoucement a few months ago of low power G5's, we will have PowerBook G5! Steve couldn't have been serious about the x86. He'd never use something so ugly in one of his computers....

[Dale Cooper]

What kind of cheese?

Wensleydale.

[Photorun]

Steve couldn't have been serious about the x86. He'd never use something so ugly in one of his computers....

Yes, because we all know people really like to crack open their machines and look at the inside in order to the actual chip on the motherboard by it's looks.:rolleyes:

[Tilmitt]

Yes, because we all know people really like to crack open their machines and look at the inside in order to the actual chip on the motherboard by it's looks.:rolleyes:

Steve forced a redesign of the original Mac motherboard cause he didn't like how the RAM slots looked. The new design didn't work and they had to go back to the old one after wasting a few months. In any case I was reffering to the ugliness in the way x86 operates. You Mac users have forgotten the dream.

[kbonnel]

Just thinking out loud here, but wouldn't the moon melt if it was made from cheese?

space is very cold :)

Kimo

[kbonnel]

I just hope they don't stick those damn "intel inside" stickers on the new machines.!!!

Kimo

[hsvguy]

Seriously, some Mac fanboys need to get over the whole switching to Intel thing. It's going to happen, the wheels are in motion, you can't stop it. Bla, bla, bla...

Some people may stop buying Mac's after they move to Intel, but I see those people as being a very small minority. Like many people have said, who cares what's inside the Mac as long as its fast.

And I highly doubt Apple would have pushed on with the transition if it knew there was nothing to gain. Next years Intel boxes should, and most likely will be, faster then current G4's. So, there won't be every app thats compatible from the word go, but people aern't going to die over it.

There is lots to gain from this transition. Steve isn't stupid. He wouldn't kill the company that he helped rescue from impending doom. He's smarter then that.

[Photorun]

I still postulate the theory the Earth is flat and the moon is made of cheese.

So does the bible (Isaiah 11:12, other places) and for some reason people still buy into that tawdry tome. However nowhere does it mention cheese?!

Would people stop saying how slow the G4 is! For some processes, yes, but for others it isn't! On other threads many Powerbook (and one Mini as I recall) user was talking about certain actions with certain applications that were as quick as a G5 and as faster than certain, newer model, PCs they were using. Applications run based on how they work with the CPU and, for some applications, they're written incredibly well to mesh with a G4's instruction. A friend of mine has a Powerbook and I can attest for day to day actions like Mail, Safari, etc., I can't tell the difference between that and my G5 2.0 DP machine. In fact when he's over he can launch a lot of stuff as fast as mine. Yes, Gaming is slower and power apps mostly slower but not incredibly so. Those thinking about still buying a G4 today needn't worry, that machine will give you a good three to five years of good use. Remember a computer is a tool for the job, and the G4 is a mighty good tool!

[Photorun]

Steve forced a redesign of the original Mac motherboard cause he didn't like how the RAM slots looked. The new design didn't work and they had to go back to the old one after wasting a few months. In any case I was reffering to the ugliness in the way x86 operates. You Mac users have forgotten the dream.

I was being disingenuous, kinda like humor but not that funny. I know of the Mac story but it was for the PowerMacs which could easily open, not the Powerbook line. And being an aesthetics guy I agree to make the insides as sexy as the outside. But in my G5 you don't see the processors, only these giant shiny boxes that say "G5." Maybe Steve will put "G6" on the Intel models forgoing the need for their ugly logos? We can all dream!

And you're pulling my leg about how x86 operates I hope as the way the newer crop process instruction is quite different from the older models. When you look at the org chart of how/where the parts take info it doesn't look that different than a PPC too.

I dream of Macs staying relevant, increasing market share, making Windoze lusers looking bad, getting faster to the point where I think and it happens. I don't care if they have to find a way of wiring a hamster in a wheel inside each box to get to the end result, just do it!

[efoto]

I just hope they don't stick those damn "intel inside" stickers on the new machines.!!!

Kimo

I remember when we first heard that Apple was switching proc. manufacturers and we had thread after thread devoted to naming the new 'hybrids' and also debating whether or not we thought that Macs would now come branded with an Intel badge :p

[SiliconAddict]

I think that's fairly arrogant.

I don't think so. You buy a couch it should be comfortable. You buy a TV it should do what you want out of it. Now if you buy a piece of art. . .it should look pleasing. There isn't anything arrogant here. It’s the difference between wanting a tool to do something and wanting a status symbol. I personally abhor people who buy “stuff” because its trendy. More then anything it seems a bit shallow to me. *shrugs* That’s just how I see it. Nothing arrogant about it.

[jayscheuerle]

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

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

Unfortunately, the screen res and battery life are probably the only reasons I'd ever want to update my iBook...

[NickFalk]

Wensleydale.
http://www.wallaceandgromit.net/images/wngwensleydale_sm.jpg

[bbyrdhouse]

It's more of a matter of when not if when it comes to all the Apple stuff getting the Intel inside. Either way we are going to see at least 2 Apple products with some magical type of Intel CPU by June 06.

The million dollar question is which already great Apple product will get the Intel upgrade first:confused:

I don't think it would be to far fetched to think that Apple could also begin selling Apps including Pro Apps that have both PPC bibaries and X86 binaries on the cd. They have after all, known internally of the switch to Intel alot longer than the public.
I think that we could all be surprised and see some of Apple's apps mirgate quickly or even already done. Now, apps from other vendors perhaps it will take a while longer such as Photoshop, Illustrator, etc.. but maybe this is why Apple was prepared and released Aperture. I know that they said it's not supposed to compete with Photoshop, but all they would have to do is add layer capability and maybe a "light" version and whala.

I just don't think that there is going to be a major hold up on the app side of the switch.

my $.02 worth.

[NickFalk]

I personally abhor people who buy “stuff” because its trendy. More then anything it seems a bit shallow to me. *shrugs* That’s just how I see it. Nothing arrogant about it.
Well I certainly don't believe you don't care about asthetics at all. If you do you're probably the only person who does. What about the colour of that coach? Is bright green and purple flowers OK as long as it is "comfy" enough?

Bang & Olufsen would probably be out of business decades ago if it was just price/sound-quality people were looking for. We're not necessarily talking about "trendy" stuff, just that a lot of us actually like to buy things that look neat. As I said, I personally don't use this as a guideline when buying computers, if I did I probably would have a G4 Cube as my main computer.

[jayscheuerle]

space is very cold :)

Kimo

Days and nights on the Moon are 14 times as long as those on the Earth. Together with the lack of atmosphere, this means the surface experiences a huge range of temperatures, from a minimum of -170°C to a maximum of +130°C.

[NickFalk]

Days and nights on the Moon are 14 times as long as those on the Earth. Together with the lack of atmosphere, this means the surface experiences a huge range of temperatures, from a minimum of -170°C to a maximum of +130°C.
A-ha! I knew it it! No let's see what you cheese-followers come up with! ;)

[bbyrdhouse]

So does the bible (Isaiah 11:12, other places)

Wrong! The Bible does not teach that the Earth is flat but to the contrare it teaches that the Earth is round.

C'mon, science is always playing "catch up" to God.

[thias]

Bring on the Intels - I know a few people who will switch as soon as the intels arrive.

That would be me. :)

A lot of people will find almost all existing hardware good "enough" and then they might be willing to buy based on looks just as likely as any other "quality". I mean, it's not like everyone buys the car that gives best performance for the money is it?

I'm currently a PC user, hoping to go Intel Mac sometime soon. My current laptop is a DELL and it's heavy like a stone, XP freezes nicely, etc. Design - of the OS and the computer - is exactly why I want to switch to Mac. Anything would get the job done more or less, somehow a Mac just feels better...

[jayscheuerle]

Wrong! The Bible does not teach that the Earth is flat but to the contrare it teaches that the Earth is round.

C'mon, science is always playing "catch up" to God.

Don't you mean:

C'mon, science is always playing "catch up" to God. ;)

[NickFalk]

Wrong! The Bible does not teach that the Earth is flat but to the contrare it teaches that the Earth is round.
But what if it's flat and round? :confused:

[oober_freak]

I totally agree with you - iBook will have Celeron M CPUs no doubt about this - still way better than any G4. Pentium M for Powerbooks.

Everytime I have purchased a G4 based Apple product I kinda feel I've been ripped off. The G4 is a slow CPU by today's standards.

Bring on the Intels - I know a few people who will switch as soon as the intels arrive.

Ahem... well I have an old Celeron M 1.4 ghz powered laptop at home.. I can assure you it is crap with a big C. The battery life is so bad that it doesn't last even 2 hours... play NFS UG2 on it.. and make it one hour.

No way do I see Apple settling for 1.5 hrs battery life for an ibook!

Get over it.. a G4 isn't that bad as it is made to be. Intel processors are not some god-sent ones. They do have their set of problems.

I would say a G4 compares to Pentium M at the same clock speeds...

So as of today, a g4 1.67 would be more comparable to a Pentium M 1.73. That is why Apple had a problem here.. the Pentium M chips reached 2.26ghz and g4 stayed at 1.67 at the same price range...

Let me assure you, i've spent more time with PCs than Macs.. but "quality" time only with macs :p

[efoto]

I don't think so. You buy a couch it should be comfortable. You buy a TV it should do what you want out of it. Now if you buy a piece of art. . .it should look pleasing. There isn't anything arrogant here. It’s the difference between wanting a tool to do something and wanting a status symbol. I personally abhor people who buy “stuff” because its trendy. More then anything it seems a bit shallow to me. *shrugs* That’s just how I see it. Nothing arrogant about it.

I agree with this defense. While I may not abhor those who purchase for trend use, I do think it is a bit sad. I purchased an iPod because I thought it was the best mp3 player to market at the time for the features I was looking for....same thing for my PowerBook, best laptop to market for the features I wanted (size, style, runtime, ease of use).

I have a friend who just purchased a 15" PB for the sole reason that it is the 'cool' computer to have. That to me is sad, especially since he doesn't even want to learn the OS or appreciate the benefits of a Mac, he just wants email/internet/etc and he got a decked out PB just because. Sad doesn't even fully fit, it's more of a frustration for me.

What does any of this have to do with an Intel iBook? :confused:

[Chundles]

I don't think it would be to far fetched to think that Apple could also begin selling Apps including Pro Apps that have both PPC bibaries and X86 binaries on the cd. They have after all, known internally of the switch to Intel alot longer than the public.
I think that we could all be surprised and see some of Apple's apps mirgate quickly or even already done. Now, apps from other vendors perhaps it will take a while longer such as Photoshop, Illustrator, etc.. but maybe this is why Apple was prepared and released Aperture. I know that they said it's not supposed to compete with Photoshop, but all they would have to do is add layer capability and maybe a "light" version and whala.

I just don't think that there is going to be a major hold up on the app side of the switch.

my $.02 worth.

Um, that's exactly what they're doing. They have already done it with most of their apps, it's just going to take some time to get all the 3rd parties on board.

The problem is for professionals who need more power and native apps NOW, not in a few months.

[efoto]

Unfortunately, the screen res and battery life are probably the only reasons I'd ever want to update my iBook...

I agree. My PB is performing adequately right now, and I can't imagine spending money to 'upgrade' it simply for a faster FSB. Increased battery life (from proc. factors), more RAM (faster doesn't matter as much to me as more), etc would be reasons for me to switch. I'd also go over sooner than later if HD screens started to pop their heads up :)

[NickFalk]

What does any of this have to do with an Intel iBook? :confused:
...or cheese?

[cwoloszynski]

I have seen lots of folks say that various Apps from various vendors are not ported to x86 already. How do you know that?

If I was Adobe, I am not going to release the app until I get the first new production machine to test it on. I quite likely have my apps ported right now, but would not announce that until the x86 box is in my hands to verify it works as expected.

I also suspect that perhaps Apple is having the big developers hold off their announcement to make a HUGE splash when the announce the first Intel machines. This way, they can announce the apps are ready just when the machine is ready.

Don't think that Adobe and company are not busily working to get their code ported. I port code everyday between different processor architectures, and your success can be very high, if you don't have some endian issues or special instruction set features and the OS has the same features. Since Mac OS will have the same features, the only issues are endian-ness and the ALTIVEC code. But that is easily tackled and can be tuned with point releases.

[cwoloszynski]

-- EDIT -- Too quick on the keyboard --

[efoto]

I don't think it would be to far fetched to think that Apple could also begin selling Apps including Pro Apps that have both PPC bibaries and X86 binaries on the cd. They have after all, known internally of the switch to Intel alot longer than the public.
I think that we could all be surprised and see some of Apple's apps mirgate quickly or even already done. Now, apps from other vendors perhaps it will take a while longer such as Photoshop, Illustrator, etc.. but maybe this is why Apple was prepared and released Aperture. I know that they said it's not supposed to compete with Photoshop, but all they would have to do is add layer capability and maybe a "light" version and whala.

I would venture a guess that large players/partners, like Adobe, were probably given a heads-up on the switch well before we the user heard about it. Apple isn't dumb, they don't make decisions on a whim, and they don't want to burn bridges with major companies on a 'silly' switch. I wouldn't be surprised at all if Apple offered assistance directly to companies like Adobe in helping them get moved over to x86 OS X compatibility. They certainly aren't going to, rather didn't, leave Adobe in the dark on this switch until we heard about it, that isn't how business is done.

Are the delays on the release of Aperture due to the fact that they want to release a PPC version and an x86 version at the same time? Or are there other published 'issues' delaying the product's release?

[cwoloszynski]

Apple has, in the past, announced one machine and pre-announced another. Wouldn't it be reasonable to expect that they might do this for the laptops? Announce the iBook and also pre-announce the PB so everyone will know what is coming? It will kill the sales of the PB for some time, but the iBook will do that just as well.

That way, everyone can get revved up to buy some new laptops.

Steve will spin this as 'we are making the best new PB we can, but it will take us an extra few months and it will STILL be before our previously announced JUNE timeline.

[efoto]

Apple has, in the past, announced one machine and pre-announced another. Wouldn't it be reasonable to expect that they might do this for the laptops? Announce the iBook and also pre-announce the PB so everyone will know what is coming? It will kill the sales of the PB for some time, but the iBook will do that just as well.

That way, everyone can get revved up to buy some new laptops.

Steve will spin this as 'we are making the best new PB we can, but it will take us an extra few months and it will STILL be before our previously announced JUNE timeline.

I'm not so sure that Apple will, or should, announce specs for an upcoming PB. Right now we know what is out there, or at least in the pipeline. It may be to Apple's best interest to keep their plan in the dark a while longer, perhaps Merom time or whatever is the 'next big thing' that we all want in our new PB. Since we all know things are coming, they might as well keep it secret and build hype. Announcing something now that won't be realized until late '06 or early '07 would be a bit silly I think, since it would more than likely change over the next year.

Now if you move to another line and have them announce a Intel based iMac, then I think we're talking :)

[Mr Maui]

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

Either case it is really time to sell my PB :D
Not sure which one it will be, but someone took my old Avatar. ;)

[reflex]

I don't think so. You buy a couch it should be comfortable. You buy a TV it should do what you want out of it. Now if you buy a piece of art. . .it should look pleasing. There isn't anything arrogant here. It’s the difference between wanting a tool to do something and wanting a status symbol. I personally abhor people who buy “stuff” because its trendy. More then anything it seems a bit shallow to me. *shrugs* That’s just how I see it. Nothing arrogant about it.

If you buy a couch, you also want it to fit in with the rest of your furniture to some extent.

[Photorun]

Wrong! The Bible does not teach that the Earth is flat but to the contrare it teaches that the Earth is round.

It's also the center of the universe (Psalm 104:5, 93:1, 96:10) and that you can't trim your hair in Leveticus 19:27 or approach the alter of god with bad eye sight in 21:20. Who needs science when you have humor that writes itself. The part about aliens though, now THAT part I believe!

By the way, not sure if you noticed but this is Macrumors.com, not godrumors.com, so keep your discussions to Mac topics, or at the very least, Jobs is god topics.

Thank you.

[jayscheuerle]

But what if it's flat and round? :confused:

With a pat of butter and some maple syrup?

Hmmm... Earthcakes..

[jayscheuerle]

I would venture a guess that large players/partners, like Adobe, were probably given a heads-up on the switch well before we the user heard about it. Apple isn't dumb, they don't make decisions on a whim, and they don't want to burn bridges with major companies on a 'silly' switch. I wouldn't be surprised at all if Apple offered assistance directly to companies like Adobe in helping them get moved over to x86 OS X compatibility. They certainly aren't going to, rather didn't, leave Adobe in the dark on this switch until we heard about it, that isn't how business is done.

Then why do you think Adobe and especially Quark took so long to get OSX native progams out there the last time a switch was needed?

OSX 10.0 was released in March of 2001. Photoshop 7 in February of 2002. Quark 6 in June of 2003...

[reflex]

Since Mac OS will have the same features, the only issues are endian-ness and the ALTIVEC code. But that is easily tackled and can be tuned with point releases.

And any assembly code you're using. And 3rd party libraries that you don't happen to have the sourcecode for. And your development environment not supporting x86 binaries yet. And ...

Could be any number of reasons really. But I agree, for most apps endian-ness and altivec are the biggest problems.

[efoto]

Then why do you think Adobe and especially Quark took so long to get OSX native progams out there the last time a switch was needed?

OSX 10.0 was released in March of 2001. Photoshop 7 in February of 2002. Quark 6 in June of 2003...

Because they suck at coding? :confused:

I don't know, forget what I said then :p

[Cooknn]

I hope they keep a small notebook. If not 12" a 13" widescreen. And it would be sweet if they would use Mighty Mouse technology on the trackpad. I'll use it like a big PDA :p

[jayscheuerle]

Because they suck at coding? :confused:

I don't know, forget what I said then :p

lol..

I'd say it's because they suck at coding when it's not going to bring them a profit with upgrade fees.

Adobe isn't going to release a native Intel/Mac version of their Creative suite for nothing. People can look forward to paying the full upgrade price when CS3 or CS4 rolls around (let's hope it's CS3). Remember, Photoshop 6 came out around the same time that 10.0 did and it wasn't native. CS2 came out over a year ago, which means CS3 has been in the works for some time. If CS3 isn't Intel/Mac native, then there's going to be another year wait... NOT very promising...

[iEdd]

*Comes back into thread on page 13*.
•Arguments about looks vs function. -I like both. I don't buy paint for function much anymore, usually just looks.
•Bible discussions. Well I don't have a bible, I actually have the Oxford Shortened dictionary.
-
--
---
:p

[jayscheuerle]

*Comes back into thread on page 13*.
•Arguments about looks vs function. -I like both. I don't buy paint for function much anymore, usually just looks.
•Bible discussions. Well I don't have a bible, I actually have the Oxford Shortened dictionary.
-
--
---
:p

Shortened? Words beginning with A-F?

[d_and_n5000]

here's what I want-
a black, widescreen 13 inch intel iBook with a 2.5 ghz Pentium M, 64 dedicated graphics memory, 768 mb ram, 6 hr. battery, for US$799. doesn't sound too unreasonable to me.

[jadekitty24]

here's what I want-
a black, widescreen 13 inch intel iBook with a 2.5 ghz Pentium M, 64 dedicated graphics memory, 768 mb ram, 6 hr. battery, for US$799. doesn't sound too unreasonable to me.
:p I second that:p

[ezekielrage_99]

Sign me up for one of those iBooks as well..... sounds kind of sweet:D

[aswitcher]

here's what I want-
a black, widescreen 13 inch intel iBook with a 2.5 ghz Pentium M, 64 dedicated graphics memory, 768 mb ram, 6 hr. battery, for US$799. doesn't sound too unreasonable to me.

Illuminated keyboard would be cool...really distinguish it from the PC lines...

I would even push up the VRAM to 128 meg as a BTO to give this some decent game performance and longevity.

Audio in is another desire...

120 gig+ HDD option...

DVI out... or even HDMI out..

I guess most of the PB features would be desireable...

The PB line will likely get the dual core chip, 2 gig max ram, "two button" trackpad, HD screens, iSight etc to distinguish them from the i line. Not to mention 15 and 17" screen sizes...

[AidenShaw]

The PB line will likely get the dual core chip, 2 gig max ram...
The Yonah chipset will support 4 GiB RAM....

And as soon as I can get a laptop that supports 4 GiB the P.O. will be flying over the wires to the vendor.

I have a couple of Pentium M laptops with 2 GiB RAM - and the reason that I have a "couple of them" is that 2 GiB isn't enough memory for my needs. Two laptops and a Gigabit Ethernet crossover cable is acceptable - but a 4 GiB RAM dual core Yonah would be sublime.

[matix]

The Yonah chipset will support 4 GiB RAM....

And as soon as I can get a laptop that supports 4 GiB the P.O. will be flying over the wires to the vendor.

I have a couple of Pentium M laptops with 2 GiB RAM - and the reason that I have a "couple of them" is that 2 GiB isn't enough memory for my needs. Two laptops and a Gigabit Ethernet crossover cable is acceptable - but a 4 GiB RAM dual core Yonah would be sublime.

I am dying to know what your needs are. *no sarcasm*

[generik]

I am dying to know what your needs are. *no sarcasm*

His laptop really is the database backend for Amazon's A9.com :rolleyes:

[AidenShaw]

I am dying to know what your needs are. *no sarcasm*
I often do presentations and demos of datacenter applications, so it's nice to be able to run a full 3-tier transaction processing website from my briefcase.

That's a couple of Apache or IIS web servers for the front end, Weblogic or other J2EE business logic piece, and an Oracle or SQL server backend. If Windows-based, it's often useful (sometimes necessary) to have a domain controller as well.

And of course, you need a client or two to create the traffic for the website.

All running in Virtual Server and/or VMware virtual machines on a midsized (4.7 lb) laptop with 2 GiB RAM and 240 GB disk (http://www1.us.dell.com/content/products/productdetails.aspx/latit_d610?c=us&cs=555&l=en&s=biz). The 240 GB of disk is enough for the whole lot, but 2 GiB of RAM isn't, so I need two laptops to run a complete system.

So, the "Amazon" quip wasn't that far off the mark :D !

ps: I also have some work environments in virtual machines, so that I can move the entire "system" around without worrying about missing a file or not having something installed where I'm working.

For example, I can run my Visual Studio .NET environment on my dual Xeon while I'm in the office - or move the virtual machine to the Xeon at home and have exactly the same environment there - or I can move the virtual machine to my laptop and use it on an airplane without any external network connection. Some of these like a GiB of RAM or more, so sometimes the 2 GiB on the laptop feels restrictive.

[nsjoker]

rofl.. man, you guys are hilarious if you think apple will sell a 13" wxga laptop w/ 768 ram and 64 mb of vid memory w/ a 2.4 ghz chip for 799. the lowest price will be 899, if that. expect a fair price, but not 200 dollar drops, it's just not happening. sorry :(

[jadekitty24]

rofl.. man, you guys are hilarious if you think apple will sell a 13" wxga laptop w/ 768 ram and 64 mb of vid memory w/ a 2.4 ghz chip for 799. the lowest price will be 899, if that. expect a fair price, but not 200 dollar drops, it's just not happening. sorry :(
I don't recall that we were PREDICTING, more like stating what we WANTED. And I want a 13" iBook for $800. Not saying it WILL happen (dreaming, though;) )

[nsjoker]

I don't recall that we were PREDICTING, more like stating what we WANTED. And I want a 13" iBook for $800. Not saying it WILL happen (dreaming, though;) )

fair enough, since we're just wanting, count me in with that 799 price point :D

[dblissmn]

Hmmm...do you actually use Stata? Stata devs still haven't made any optimizations for the G5, and that's been out for 2.5 years now. (Heck, as far as I know they haven't made any optimizations for the P4, and that's been out for 5 years.)

Stata is currently developed in CodeWarrior. They will have to port it over to XCode before they can compile a Universal binary. That is not a trivial amount of work. I will be shocked if a Stata Universal binary is released in January. It will come, but it will take a while.

Yes, I do ACTUALLY use Stata -- on a G4 Digital Audio, a Powerbook, and a Pentium IV at work. While I know it has not been optimized on a G5, Stata themselves state that it benefits from the dual FPU units on the G5. I encourage you to take a look at comments on the Stata listserv that refer directly to this, such as this one (http://www.stata.com/statalist/archive/2003-06/msg00525.html). There is no benefit to optimizing Stata for Altivec, however. Single-precision Altivec wouldn't do it any good anyway. So on the G4 you're left with one FPU unit and no vector processing. Sort of Pentium III-ish, in other words.

Given that neither G4 nor the more limited G5 Altivec will do this software any good, I presume by lack of G5 optimization, you must be referring to lack of multiprocessing support? If so, I have a question for you -- is there a significant difference for non-SMP software between dual processors and a dual core processor?

The really depressing and sobering reality check part of your post is the news that Stata isn't even in the right compiling software for Universal Binary . . . . sounds like a project for Stata 10, I'm afraid. But the eternal optimist in me remembers how quick they were with Carbonizing Stata 7, a process completed and posted by August 2001 (and that was a mid-version upgrade, not a paid one).

[Multimedia]

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

Like the article mentions, it makes sense for Apple's lowest performer to go intel, with Power Mac G5s slated for summer 2007 when hopefully all their pro apps like Final Cut Pro go universal binary by then.In June, Jobs stated that all Apple software is already developed for Intel as well as for PPC. So this has nothing to do with waiting for any Apple applications to be ready. They are all ready now. It's about waiting for Intel 64-bit dual core preocessors that exceed PPC G5 quad (dual dual core) processor performance. I doubt we will have to wiat until mid 2007 for the transition to be completed. More likely the Intel quad (dual dual core) PowerMacs will be shipping by January 2007 MacWorld San Francisco.

[efoto]

here's what I want-
a black, widescreen 13 inch intel iBook with a 2.5 ghz Pentium M, 64 dedicated graphics memory, 768 mb ram, 6 hr. battery, for US$799. doesn't sound too unreasonable to me.Illuminated keyboard would be cool...really distinguish it from the PC lines...

I would even push up the VRAM to 128 meg as a BTO to give this some decent game performance and longevity.

Audio in is another desire...

120 gig+ HDD option...

DVI out... or even HDMI out..

I guess most of the PB features would be desireable...

The PB line will likely get the dual core chip, 2 gig max ram, "two button" trackpad, HD screens, iSight etc to distinguish them from the i line. Not to mention 15 and 17" screen sizes...

I don't see 120GB HDD option in an iBook, or HDMI out :rolleyes: Those features would have to be options on the PBooks first before they trickle down to the i series. I would be surprised to see some HDMI in the future, but it may be rev.b Intel stuff, simply because it isn't even that common in homes yet, let alone mobile computing.

The other issue is that if you add 128MB of v.ram 2GB or more of sys.ram your battery life will decrease due to added pull from all of that RAM alone....not to mention if you throw in a 120GB drive (assuming it would be 5400 or 7200 rpm), etc etc.

[generik]

I don't see 120GB HDD option in an iBook, or HDMI out :rolleyes: Those features would have to be options on the PBooks first before they trickle down to the i series. I would be surprised to see some HDMI in the future, but it may be rev.b Intel stuff, simply because it isn't even that common in homes yet, let alone mobile computing.

The other issue is that if you add 128MB of v.ram 2GB or more of sys.ram your battery life will decrease due to added pull from all of that RAM alone....not to mention if you throw in a 120GB drive (assuming it would be 5400 or 7200 rpm), etc etc.


Who cares if Apple's marketing decide if whether a 120gb hdd is "consumer" or "prosumer", at the prices apple charge to do the upgrade, you can get a stock iBook, THROW THE INCLUDED DRIVE AWAY, upgrade it yourself, and still come out ahead.

The same is true for ram too, ridiculous.

[actingbiz1]

Personally, I don't think intel is all that great... I think Apples PPC processers are pretty good! I have an alienware and it isn't nearly as fast as my apple... and the alienware is 3GHz my mac is 2GHz. I donno. Just as long as I can run all my software quickly, if not quicker than I have now.

[Legacy]

If this rumour is true I would guess something along the lines of:

Intel Pentium M (Whatever Jargon name they wish to call it in Apple language) at 2Ghz w/ 1Mb Cache
512MB DDR2 Memory (1.5GB MAX)
13.3ins Widescreen Display
Superdrive
Ati X600 Graphics w/ 64Mb VGA
Silver Form and probs thinner than current model
Slightly better speakers and a brighter screen with wider view angle
80GB Hard Drive 5200rpms
BT + Airport standard
56k Modem made optional (haha)

Price: £599-699 (probs the latter or maybe £649)

Intel Pentium M 2.33Ghz 2/ 1Mb Cache
512Mb Memory
15.4ins Widescreen
Superdrive Dual Layer
Ati x600 w/ 128Mb VGA
100GB Hard Drive 5200rpms

Price: £799-899

Can't expect much more from Apple

Regards

[Val-kyrie]

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

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

WHY?

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

Otherwise we will see nothing. WHICH I DOUBT

I also think the 13.3" iBook widescreen rumor may be accurate. I wouldn't be surprised to see Apple stoke developers in January by eliminating the G4 completely. However, I don't expect much from Rev. A except for a chip change. I think form factor changes (e.g., 13.3" widescreen iBook), new hardware (e.g., Blue-Ray drives), etc., will happen around the release of Merom when the Intel architecture also changes. I would be disappointed if Apple were to use a Dothan, but I have braced myself for it. Maybe, instead of waiting, I just should have bought a Dothan PC and waited until '07 when Leopard and Merom will both be out.

[Cooknn]

I also think the 13.3" iBook widescreen rumor may be accurate.I would be all over that. I hope you're right :p

[Val-kyrie]

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

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

This is possible but unnecessary. I don't think Apple could cripple the iBook enough, even on a low-end Dothan chip, to make it slower than current PBs. Rather, I think it is more likely that Apple will announce/release all three in Jan, and let mobile pros stay with the last PPC release. And if Apple releases a PB in Jan, I expect it to be upgraded around June with the release of Merom.

[Val-kyrie]

Is there a reason why all of your iBook options must be integrated graphics? Come'on, even the Dell inspiron series offers discrete graphics. The PBs only need better gfx cards--think NVidia 7800 Go (PB) vs. ATI x600 (iBk).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

$2499 2.16GHz PowerBook
17" Widescreen, 1650x1050

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

[generik]

Personally, I don't think intel is all that great... I think Apples PPC processers are pretty good! I have an alienware and it isn't nearly as fast as my apple... and the alienware is 3GHz my mac is 2GHz. I donno. Just as long as I can run all my software quickly, if not quicker than I have now.

That is because it is 3Ghz (netburst) architecture.

The new Pentiums barely exceed 2Ghz.. the highest speed being 2.13Ghz I think.

[Val-kyrie]

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

I'll go buy a Sager or Asus if this is the only iBook option Apple offers.

[generik]

I doubt there will be a dual core iBook, if ever.

Apple is a master of market segmentation, if they are even ghey enough to restrict the iBook to 133Mhz system bus and the PBs to use the "woah, way faster!" 167Mhz bus, no way in hell will they offer a dual core consumer option.

Apple takes money by the trough and delivers through a straw, enough said.

[Val-kyrie]

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

Agreed.

Or is Apple smoking out the moles?

[Val-kyrie]

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

On the hardware side:

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

Actually, no. Another MR poster provided a link to this article (http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=27770) which states that Single Core Yonahs will be available at 1.66GHz beginning Jan 1.

[generik]

Actually, no. Another MR poster provided a link to this article (http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=27770) which states that Single Core Yonahs will be available at 1.66GHz beginning Jan 1.

Will it actually ship out in time for MWSF? :confused:

With the event on the 10th it is quite hard to see how they actually start making the new iBooks only from the 1st?

[Val-kyrie]

So does the bible (Isaiah 11:12, other places) and for some reason people still buy into that tawdry tome.

Before you begin a biblical exposition, you should sharpen your literary skills.

Isa 11:12 says (NIV): "He will raise a banner for the nations and gather the exiles of Israel; he will assemble the scattered people of Judah from the four quarters of the earth."

The passage is not making a scientific claim in this passage nor even stating a scientific fact. The passage is a prophecy concerning the regathering of the nation of Israel. The number four is symbolic throughout Scripture, often referring to completeness and wholeness. "The four quarters of the earth" encompasses the whole earth; it does not connote the earth's geometric shape. Thus the passage refers to the regathering of the houses of Israel and Judah from across "the entire (= the whole of) earth. It is simply an Hebraic idiom. The fulfilment of this prophecy, however, is an hermeneutical issue for you to decide.

Your ignorant comment about those who believe this "tawdry tome" deserves no comment.

[Val-kyrie]

It's also the center of the universe (Psalm 104:5, 93:1, 96:10) and that you can't trim your hair in Leveticus 19:27 or approach the alter of god with bad eye sight in 21:20. Who needs science when you have humor that writes itself. The part about aliens though, now THAT part I believe!

By the way, not sure if you noticed but this is Macrumors.com, not godrumors.com, so keep your discussions to Mac topics, or at the very least, Jobs is god topics.

Thank you.

The question that needs to be answered with regard to the Psalter and astronomy is whether the Psalms are reflecting a theological tradition of placing mankind in the center of God's creation for theological purposes or whether it is attempting to reflect a scientific worldview.


The Old Testament rites are cultural rituals which reflect religious values (you can't really separate culture from religion as if they are mutually independent of each other). Whether they are still in force depends, for Jews, upon whether the Messiah has fulfilled the Law and established a New Covenant which has eliminated the need for such rituals. For Christians, this issue is a non-issue.

PS--Just remember who started this with the "tawdry tome" comment.

[Val-kyrie]

The Yonah chipset will support 4 GiB RAM....

And as soon as I can get a laptop that supports 4 GiB the P.O. will be flying over the wires to the vendor.

I have a couple of Pentium M laptops with 2 GiB RAM - and the reason that I have a "couple of them" is that 2 GiB isn't enough memory for my needs. Two laptops and a Gigabit Ethernet crossover cable is acceptable - but a 4 GiB RAM dual core Yonah would be sublime.

OK, so here's my burning question. If I purchased a Merom based laptop without having 4GiB RAM in the machine, would I lose performance compared to the same machine with a Yonah (assume both have 1GiB minimum, possibly 2GiB RAM)? I ask because the odds of me being able to afford 4GiB of RAM for any laptop is slim in the near future unless memory prices come down quite a bit.

[Val-kyrie]

I doubt there will be a dual core iBook, if ever.

Apple is a master of market segmentation, if they are even ghey enough to restrict the iBook to 133Mhz system bus and the PBs to use the "woah, way faster!" 167Mhz bus, no way in hell will they offer a dual core consumer option.

Apple takes money by the trough and delivers through a straw, enough said.

I expect that by 2007, single-core processors won't even be produced.

[efoto]

This is possible but unnecessary. I don't think Apple could cripple the iBook enough, even on a low-end Dothan chip, to make it slower than current PBs. Rather, I think it is more likely that Apple will announce/release all three in Jan, and let mobile pros stay with the last PPC release. And if Apple releases a PB in Jan, I expect it to be upgraded around June with the release of Merom.

I don't think they need to 'cripple' the iBooks at all, there is no reason. Even if the new iBooks come out with better numbers than the current PBs, that isn't a problem. Everyone is expecting this switch to give better performance, after all if it doesn't then the switch is for nothing. I wouldn't be disappointed or upset if the new iBooks 'outperformed' the current PB offerings, not at all. If anything, I would be enthused and expect even better things for when they switch the PBs over. I think it would be great to see some great kick-ass iBook offerings. All that would prove is that rev.b will be even better, and when the pro line goes over it should hold great things :)

[Lacero]

I don't think Apple will come out with Intel iBooks, but I do think they will come out with Intel laptops, though.

My guess, Apple is going to drop both the iBook and PowerBook lines or combine them into a single line for both consumers on the low-end and pros on the high-end. They may keep the PowerBook moniker.

[efoto]

I don't think Apple will come out with Intel iBooks, but I do think they will come out with Intel laptops, though.

My guess, Apple is going to drop both the iBook and PowerBook lines or combine them into a single line for both consumers on the low-end and pros on the high-end. They may keep the PowerBook moniker.

You're suggesting that there will only be one *Book? :eek:

I can't see that, unless it is in Apple's master plan for all of their computational product lines (ie no more 'i' vs' 'power' and just one), but I don't see the iMac going anyway either, because I just can't imagine Apple only offering PowerMacs, especially when the iMac is so unique in delivery and style.

[ZorPrime]

The new Pentiums barely exceed 2Ghz.. the highest speed being 2.13Ghz I think.

The 780 Pentium M chips at 2.26Ghz are available on the Sony VAIO FS790 and Dell's XPS M170. It would be nice, if Apple updates the PB line in Jan, to have one of those as an option. Either way, I'll wait for a Rev B or C intel book before getting a second Mac laptop. I recently got a new PB PPC and love it, best of all I can continue playing Marathon. :D :o

[generik]

I expect that by 2007, single-core processors won't even be produced.

Perhaps, but then we'd probably be looking at quads, and the iBook will get duals then.

Still I doubt Apple will be so kind to give the same perks that they have oh so carefully stowed aside for the pro line to the consumer lines.

[generik]

I don't think Apple will come out with Intel iBooks, but I do think they will come out with Intel laptops, though.

My guess, Apple is going to drop both the iBook and PowerBook lines or combine them into a single line for both consumers on the low-end and pros on the high-end. They may keep the PowerBook moniker.

Why not just one? The IntelliBook!

[iEdd]

I don't think Apple will come out with Intel iBooks, but I do think they will come out with Intel laptops, though.

My guess, Apple is going to drop both the iBook and PowerBook lines or combine them into a single line for both consumers on the low-end and pros on the high-end. They may keep the PowerBook moniker.
I had this thought before. However, it's almost a step backward. They should make the powerbook MUCH better than iBook this time, and still keep both.

[generik]

I had this thought before. However, it's almost a step backward. They should make the powerbook MUCH better than iBook this time, and still keep both.

The trouble is, if these predictions are true I fail to see how an Intel iBook will not totally destroy a G4 based Powerbook (assuming it is not updated as well).

Even the current P-Ms will do very well against a 1.67Ghz, and I dread the day 1-2 months from now when an iBook can outpace my PB at half its price. I don't use any Altivec based apps, and Altivec to me is essentially a nice marketable name associated with a technology that is not very much different from SSE3, so I don't understand why some fanbois are proclaiming how G4s are so "powerful" because of the Altivec SIMD instructions.

Perhaps "Think Different" for them equates to "Getting suckered by marketing"?

[iEdd]

Actually if we can put windoze on intel macs, they should change the slogan to "crash different" :P

[generik]

Actually if we can put windoze on intel macs, they should change the slogan to "crash different" :P

Nah, Windows is not all that bad.. it is just lousy that's all
:p

[ezekielrage_99]

Or is Apple smoking out the moles?

I've worked in an Information/Intellingence based role before and the best way to 'smoke out a mole' is usually with misinformation, it makes it very easy to track a source :D

So I totally agree, I think Apple is outing a few bits of misinformation to find any leaks and to keep the competition guessing (and Apple is usually good at doing that, very Musashi/Machiavellian).

After all the most fearful thing for most big organisations is not know what your competition is doing next, if you know they're up to something and you don't know what it's nearly impossible to combat them in anyway.

But for the Intel iBook, Mac Mini, PB question I have listened to so much on the net about this and my money's on Pentium M's in them (consumer gets the single core version pros get the dual core).

You are getting a good mix of Intel Pentium Prestige/Power coupled with the Apple style and features, either way it will be another killer Apple product (I don't know about anyone else but I'm saving my cash for one):D

[revjay]

I doubt there will be a dual core iBook, if ever.

Apple is a master of market segmentation, if they are even ghey enough to restrict the iBook to 133Mhz system bus and the PBs to use the "woah, way faster!" 167Mhz bus, no way in hell will they offer a dual core consumer option.

Apple takes money by the trough and delivers through a straw, enough said.

Hey generik, keep a big spoon handy, in case you need to eat your words...1st revision dual core?...doubtful...2nd revision dual core?...possible...3rd revision dual core?...probable.

[revjay]

I don't think they need to 'cripple' the iBooks at all, there is no reason. Even if the new iBooks come out with better numbers than the current PBs, that isn't a problem. Everyone is expecting this switch to give better performance, after all if it doesn't then the switch is for nothing. I wouldn't be disappointed or upset if the new iBooks 'outperformed' the current PB offerings, not at all. If anything, I would be enthused and expect even better things for when they switch the PBs over. I think it would be great to see some great kick-ass iBook offerings. All that would prove is that rev.b will be even better, and when the pro line goes over it should hold great things :)
Well said! Also, let us not forget that not all of the popular power apps. will be ready for the intel switch at the top of '06. Intel iBooks introduced before powerbooks makes sense from a number of perspectives.

If indeed the future iBook out preformed the current powerbook (Jan), Apple would need to be prepared for a devistating drop in the aluminum 'books sales...(discounts anyone???).

I imagine (speculate) that if early in '06 the iBooks go intel and outperform the P.B's...that the iBooks would outsell them at a factor more significant than the drop in sales that the P.B.'s would experience.

[iQuit]

Can anyone say eBook?:)

[efoto]

Well said! Also, let us not forget that not all of the popular power apps. will be ready for the intel switch at the top of '06. Intel iBooks introduced before powerbooks makes sense from a number of perspectives.

If indeed the future iBook out preformed the current powerbook (Jan), Apple would need to be prepared for a devistating drop in the aluminum 'books sales...(discounts anyone???).

I imagine (speculate) that if early in '06 the iBooks go intel and outperform the P.B's...that the iBooks would outsell them at a factor more significant than the drop in sales that the P.B.'s would experience.

Precisely. Not even getting into the sales aspect of it, just talking performance, I don't see a single negative to having the new Intel powered iBook outperform the current G4 PBook offerings. That would be a 'so there' comment on Apple's part, justifying their switch. If the new iBooks don't outperform the current PBooks, I will be quite disappointed and wonder if Apple made a smart switch.

Even if the numbers lean to the new Intel based iBooks, the current lineup of PBooks will still be 'the best' for PPC based apps that some people need to use. The G4 will not be obsolete until every app by every maker is universal binary. At that point it will be a matter of which chips can round out the best system, which Apple is telling us Intel can do better than IBM/Freescale/PPC maker.

[BillyShears]

Has anybody suggested that they may release Intels, but also keep PowerPC offerings? They would have two lines of each product, then. So if you don't want Intel because "nothing runs on it", get the PowerPC one. If you want the Intel, get it.

I don't think it would be too confusing. (Didn't they do something similar with the PowerMac when it stopped being able to boot into OS 9? They kept offering one that could, but it was placed down a bit on the store webpage.)

[tom_s]

Has anybody suggested that they may release Intels, but also keep PowerPC offerings? They would have two lines of each product, then. So if you don't want Intel because "nothing runs on it", get the PowerPC one. If you want the Intel, get it.


Yes, it's basically the OS9 situation again. I think Apple will keep their fastest PM G5 a few years for those who need to run PPC apps. Right now they're keeping the dual 2.7 GHz PM for those needing PCI X slots.

[generik]

Hey generik, keep a big spoon handy, in case you need to eat your words...1st revision dual core?...doubtful...2nd revision dual core?...possible...3rd revision dual core?...probable.

Why would I eat my words? If a dual iBook actually comes out which is comparable to a PB i will be first in line to buy it.

Apple product that doesn't go all out to sucker my money? I'm totally on! :D

[BillyShears]

Yes, it's basically the OS9 situation again. I think Apple will keep their fastest PM G5 a few years for those who need to run PPC apps. Right now they're keeping the dual 2.7 GHz PM for those needing PCI X slots.

So the argument about them releasing the Powerbooks first is effectively moot?

The way I see it is this (rehashing of what everyone says):

They don't want the iBook to be more powerful than the Powerbook, hence the Powerbook should get the Intel processors first. But the iBook would be more suited to Intel because the "pro" apps may not be ported over yet. (Though we don't know, anyway.)

So their options are:
1. Release an Intel-based iBook that is faster than their Powerbooks. Confuse everyone.
2. Release an Intel-based Powerbook that can't run any pro-apps. Disappoint those who buy it.
3. Release an underpowered Intel-based iBook. Makes it seem like the switch was a bad idea.
4. Release an Intel-based Powerbook (and maybe also an Intel-based iBook), but keep the PowerPC lines available.

If I were in charge of Apple, I would choose option 4. It's not too confusing: if you want "cutting edge Intel", get the Intel version. If you need your old apps to work, get the PowerPC version. I think that would be the best bet.

They can't only switch the iBooks, even if they offer two lines, because the Powerbook would still be less powerful. I think the Powerbook has to be the first notebook for the transition, but the iBook might come along at the same time.

[Multimedia]

So the argument about them releasing the Powerbooks first is effectively moot?

The way I see it is this (rehashing of what everyone says):

They don't want the iBook to be more powerful than the Powerbook, hence the Powerbook should get the Intel processors first. But the iBook would be more suited to Intel because the "pro" apps may not be ported over yet. (Though we don't know, anyway.)

So their options are:
1. Release an Intel-based iBook that is faster than their Powerbooks. Confuse everyone.
2. Release an Intel-based Powerbook that can't run any pro-apps. Disappoint those who buy it.
3. Release an underpowered Intel-based iBook. Makes it seem like the switch was a bad idea.
4. Release an Intel-based Powerbook (and maybe also an Intel-based iBook), but keep the PowerPC lines available.

If I were in charge of Apple, I would choose option 4. It's not too confusing: if you want "cutting edge Intel", get the Intel version. If you need your old apps to work, get the PowerPC version. I think that would be the best bet.

They can't only switch the iBooks, even if they offer two lines, because the Powerbook would still be less powerful. I think the Powerbook has to be the first notebook for the transition, but the iBook might come along at the same time.
5. Apple can release more powerful Mac Mini and iBooks with faster Intel processors without messing up the line because of all the other limitations these models have - fewer expansion ports, low resolution screen or no screen, smaller 2.5" hard drives, only one screen or no spanning, lower maximum ram.

6. Apple can release more powerful dual core Yonah PowerBooks shortly thereafter in February-March, Perhaps even announce them at MacWorld January 10.

No hurry to release faster iMacs nor PowerMacs as they are running Pretty fast right now with dual core PPC G5s (dual core PPC to iMac next). The longer Apple waits to complete the transition, the faster these two models will leap to when they switch.

[iEdd]

So their options are:
1. Release an Intel-based iBook that is faster than their Powerbooks. Confuse everyone.
2. Release an Intel-based Powerbook that can't run any pro-apps. Disappoint those who buy it.
3. Release an underpowered Intel-based iBook. Makes it seem like the switch was a bad idea.
4. Release an Intel-based Powerbook (and maybe also an Intel-based iBook), but keep the PowerPC lines available.

If I were in charge of Apple, I would choose option 4. It's not too confusing: if you want "cutting edge Intel", get the Intel version. If you need your old apps to work, get the PowerPC version. I think that would be the best bet.
Oh yes.. apple are coming out with this surprise announcement with intel in January. I'm sure they won't have made any pro apps intel compatible. :rolleyes:
Sorry, but c'mon. This is apple, not microsoft. You HAVE heard of rosetta, haven't you? By the time intel brings a speed enhancement, the speed decrease of an emulated PPC won't be significant.
To me, it's likely they will bring out:
#1. Powerbook, then iBook; or
#2. Powerbook, and iBook.
This way, consumer won't beat pro. Old apps still run through sufficient emulation. Official apple apps work straight away in intel binaries and everything is rosy.

[Multimedia]

Oh yes.. apple are coming out with this surprise announcement with intel in January. I'm sure they won't have made any pro apps intel compatible. :rolleyes:
Sorry, but c'mon. This is apple, not microsoft. You HAVE heard of rosetta, haven't you? By the time intel brings a speed enhancement, the speed decrease of an emulated PPC won't be significant.
To me, it's likely they will bring out:
#1. Powerbook, then iBook; or
#2. Powerbook, and iBook.
This way, consumer won't beat pro. Old apps still run through sufficient emulation. Official apple apps work straight away in intel binaries and everything is rosy.Steve specifically stated in June that all Apple Software development has included Intel versions so there is no reason to believe that any Apple Software doesn't have an Intel Version ready NOW. I think the deployment of the dual core Yonah PowerBook will depend on how soon Intel can supply Apple with enough processors to fulfill thier sales volume needs. Anyone here know how fast the supply of dual core Yonah processors is building? Are they already in full production? Or still only in samples? :confused:

[toneloco2881]

Steve specifically stated in June that all Apple Software development has included Intel versions so there is no reason to believe that any Apple Software doesn't have an Intel Version ready NOW. I think the deployment of the dual core Yonah PowerBook will depend on how soon Intel can supply Apple with enough processors to fulfill thier sales volume needs. Anyone here know how fast the supply of dual core Yonah processors is building? Are they already in full production? Or still only in samples? :confused:
Probably in full production. There's even talk of manufacturers shipping before the close of the year, due to yields going very well. I don't think supply is going to be an issue, which is why I definitely think there is going to be an announcement at least, for MWSF

[ryan]

Steve specifically stated in June that all Apple Software development has included Intel versions so there is no reason to believe that any Apple Software doesn't have an Intel Version ready NOW.

And if you've been running your software update you have at least one fat file already installed, specifically if you installed the latest Java update and run this command:

$ lipo -info /System/Library/Frameworks/JavaVM.framework/Versions/1.5.0/Commands/java

you'll see this:

Architectures in the fat file: /System/Library/Frameworks/JavaVM.framework/Versions/1.5.0/Commands/java are: i386 ppc

:cool:

[Multimedia]

Probably in full production. There's even talk of manufacturers shipping before the close of the year, due to yields going very well. I don't think supply is going to be an issue, which is why I definitely think there is going to be an announcement at least, for MWSFThat works for me. Thanks. :p

[BillyShears]

Oh yes.. apple are coming out with this surprise announcement with intel in January. I'm sure they won't have made any pro apps intel compatible. :rolleyes:
Sorry, but c'mon. This is apple, not microsoft. You HAVE heard of rosetta, haven't you? By the time intel brings a speed enhancement, the speed decrease of an emulated PPC won't be significant.

Well, that's speculation based on nothing at all. There are other companies that make "pro" apps besides Apple. They may not have switched over yet. I haven't seen any benchmarks of Rosetta running, say, Photoshop... so I don't know that the speed increase will be enough. I don't think you know, either.

To me, it's likely they will bring out:
#1. Powerbook, then iBook; or
#2. Powerbook, and iBook.
This way, consumer won't beat pro. Old apps still run through sufficient emulation. Official apple apps work straight away in intel binaries and everything is rosy.

That's what I said. Powerbook then/and iBook for exactly the reason that consumer won't beat pro. Except I think they will keep offering the PowerPC version of at least the Powerbook for people that don't want to emulate.

[Multimedia]

Well, that's speculation based on nothing at all. There are other companies that make "pro" apps besides Apple. They may not have switched over yet. I haven't seen any benchmarks of Rosetta running, say, Photoshop... so I don't know that the speed increase will be enough. I don't think you know, either.

That's what I said. Powerbook then/and iBook for exactly the reason that consumer won't beat pro. Except I think they will keep offering the PowerPC version of at least the Powerbook for people that don't want to emulate.Based on Steve's June demo of Rosetta, the Photoshop emulation is close to native speed. Since Rosetta will be in silicone, it is likely that the emulation mode will be very good. I am sure Apple will not want to release any product that will suck in emulation mode. Wishful guess yes. :p

If the benchmarks suck for emulation, then you just wait for a faster model or Universal Binary of your must have app. This would be what is known as a bump in the transition. Not that big a deal. This thing is going to unfold as smoothly as is humanly possible. But that doesn't mean that some glitches are not going to be part of the process. Glitches are part of the process. It's certainly nothing to get your panties in a wad over. :p

My thought is that the overall processing speed of the new models will be such that emulation will rival native speed in a previous PPC model at least and possably be even faster at best.

[AidenShaw]

Since Rosetta will be in silicone, it is likely that the emulation mode will be very good.
QuickTransit (Rosetta) is pure software, running on exactly the same Intel processors that every other manufacturer will be using. There are no "silicone enhancements" ;-) .

Apple is buying the technology from Transitive (see http://www.transitive.com/ and http://www.transitive.com/technology.htm for more info), it isn't even something that Apple has developed. (Also see The brains behind Apple's Rosetta: Transitive (http://news.com.com/The%2Bbrains%2Bbehind%2BApples%2BRosetta%2BTransitive/2100-1016_3-5736190.html).)

http://www.transitive.com/graphics/diagrams/tech_overview.gif

One key point from Transitive's description is:

Operating System Mapper - QuickTransit supports operating system mapping between any two Unix/Linux-like operating systems, as well as mapping between mainframe and any Unix/Linux-like operating systems. Where similar operating system calls exist between the source and destination operating system, QuickTransit maps calls between the two.

Since QuickTransit will be emulating OSX (PPC) on OSX (x86) - there should be a simple map for most OS calls. Such calls wouldn't be emulated - the native x86 system or library code would be executed.

If an application spends a lot of time in system calls, its performance will be helped because of the native execution without emulation. Things like OpenGL will run basically at native speeds, since the native OSx86 OpenGL libraries and native drivers can be used.

[efoto]

Based on Steve's June demo of Rosetta, the Photoshop emulation is close to native speed. Since Rosetta will be in silicone, it is likely that the emulation mode will be very good. I am sure Apple will not want to release any product that will suck in emulation mode. Wishful guess yes. :p

If the benchmarks suck for emulation, then you just wait for a faster model or Universal Binary of your must have app. This would be what is known as a bump in the transition. Not that big a deal. This thing is going to unfold as smoothly as is humanly possible. But that doesn't mean that some glitches are not going to be part of the process. Glitches are part of the process. It's certainly nothing to get your panties in a wad over. :p

My thought is that the overall processing speed of the new models will be such that emulation will rival native speed in a previous PPC model at least and possably be even faster at best.

I wouldn't be surprised at all if what Steve showed at the Rosetta demo was tested functions that performed well under Rosetta. It's not like he was taking suggestions on filters to run or batches of functions to be executed. It wouldn't surprise me at all if they had tested certain aspects of certain programs and demoed those to 'prove' that Rosetta will be a fast solution.

If the speed of the Intel based Macs does makeup for the decrease caused by Rosetta, then there shouldn't be any problems switching/working until Universal Binaries arrive. If the Intel Macs simply match the current PPC offerings, I don't see many pros switching over however. If they are faster, well then maybe some will based on future-proofing. I can't imagine many of them 'excited' about having to emulate something for professional work :rolleyes: :p

[AidenShaw]

I wouldn't be surprised at all if what Steve showed at the Rosetta demo was tested functions that performed well under Rosetta. ...

It wouldn't surprise me at all if they had tested certain aspects of certain programs and demoed those to 'prove' that Rosetta will be a fast solution.
QuickTransit optimizes and caches the instruction streams needed to emulate the program. This means that re-running a filter might be faster than the initial run.

Did the Steve start the programs from scratch, or did he open an icon from the dock - so that perhaps the filter had been run earlier and an optimized translation was already in memory?

The optimizing kernel reads the intermediate representation and optimizes the code. At first, simple optimizations are performed. In most applications, however, a 90/10 rules holds where 10% of the code is executed 90% of the time.

The optimizing kernel looks for blocks of code that are executed often, spends increasing amounts of time improving the optimization of this code, and then stores this optimized code in memory.

Each time a frequently used block of code needs to be executed, the highly optimized code stored in memory is used instead of optimizing that block of code again.
http://www.transitive.com/technology.htm

[jayscheuerle]

Steve specifically stated in June that all Apple Software development has included Intel versions so there is no reason to believe that any Apple Software doesn't have an Intel Version ready NOW.

Well, that's depressing since iTunes in Windows wipes the floor with iTunes in OSX running on Intel. The speculation was that with needing Rosetta translation, the Mactels couldn't use Alvitec instructions, and therefore ripping mp3s was 4 or 5 times as slow as on Windoze boxes. If iTunes HAS been optimized, that's kind of sad.

[macrumors12345]

Yes, I do ACTUALLY use Stata -- on a G4 Digital Audio, a Powerbook, and a Pentium IV at work. While I know it has not been optimized on a G5, Stata themselves state that it benefits from the dual FPU units on the G5. I encourage you to take a look at comments on the Stata listserv that refer directly to this, such as this one (http://www.stata.com/statalist/archive/2003-06/msg00525.html). There is no benefit to optimizing Stata for Altivec, however. Single-precision Altivec wouldn't do it any good anyway. So on the G4 you're left with one FPU unit and no vector processing. Sort of Pentium III-ish, in other words.

Given that neither G4 nor the more limited G5 Altivec will do this software any good, I presume by lack of G5 optimization, you must be referring to lack of multiprocessing support? If so, I have a question for you -- is there a significant difference for non-SMP software between dual processors and a dual core processor?

The really depressing and sobering reality check part of your post is the news that Stata isn't even in the right compiling software for Universal Binary . . . . sounds like a project for Stata 10, I'm afraid. But the eternal optimist in me remembers how quick they were with Carbonizing Stata 7, a process completed and posted by August 2001 (and that was a mid-version upgrade, not a paid one).

Ah, an actual Stata user. :-) I will try to be succinct here.

(1) I am aware that Altivec is single-precision only and that Stata is double-precision. My G5 optimization comments were not about Altivec.

(2) I am not referring to multi-threading Stata (i.e., making it run on multiple processors). Supposedly they are working on multi-threading it (for multiple platforms), but I seriously doubt that will happen before Stata 11 or so.

(3) By "not G5 optimized," I mean that Stata has not compiled their code with a compiler that has optimization flags for the PowerPC 970 architecture. The PPC 970 (G5) has a very different instruction pipeline and execution resources than the MPC 745x (G4). As such, code that is optimized (both by the coder and the compiler) for the G4 will not necessarily be optimized for the G5. This discussion is unrelated to anything regarding Altivec and multiprocessing. It simply reflects the fact that the G5 and the G4 are very different processors and execute the same instructions, giving the same results, in very different ways.

(4) Part of the reason Stata has never optimized for the G5 is that they use Metrowerks CodeWarrior, which does not support any optimizations for the G5 (because it's owned by Motorola, and the G5 is exclusively an IBM processor).

(5) The reason Stata uses CodeWarrior is because they have a low opinion of XCode's UI (or so they claim). In fairness, a number of programmers I have talked to have a low opinion of XCode's UI.

(6) Given (5), I expect that Stata will drag their feet a bit on shifting over to XCode, which is a necessary step for producing a Universal binary. They are basically being forced to switch to XCode...they wouldn't do it on their own volition.

All that being said, Stata does do a very good job of keeping feature parity across all platforms. So who knows, they may pleasantly surprise us. But I would be totally shocked if it happened before next summer. And, as you said, it may well wait until Stata 10.

[macrumors12345]

Well, that's depressing since iTunes in Windows wipes the floor with iTunes in OSX running on Intel. The speculation was that with needing Rosetta translation, the Mactels couldn't use Alvitec instructions, and therefore ripping mp3s was 4 or 5 times as slow as on Windoze boxes. If iTunes HAS been optimized, that's kind of sad.

It hasn't been ported to Intel (as of 10.4.1), because it's Carbon. It's like the only iApp not yet ported. The article you are referring to even specifically says that iTunes was running under emulation on OS X.

[agentgraves]

I saw this on notebookreview.com:

The Inquirer revealed the clock speeds and naming for the upcoming Intel Pentium M processors. Below is a table of the chips that will be initially available in notebooks starting in January (cut because I couldn't get them to align). The DC stands for "Dual Core" while the SC means "Single Core". Notice the FSB speed has taken a step up from 533MHz, the fastest speed of 2.16GHz is no faster than what is currently available, but keep in mind it's the dual core component that's going to give the greatest speed boost and not the actual clock speed.

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

basically, dual-cores run from 1.6-2.16 GHz, the only single-core model runs at 1.66GHz, and the Low Voltage models are dual-cores that ran at 1.5 or 1.66GHz. The link has pricing info and lineup nomenclature.

[Shaun.P]

If new iBooks are released in January, then I'll be ordering straight away! I have 2 months of wages which I haven't touched and a student loan getting paid on January the 9th (£600).

I will then probably sell my eMac.

[jayscheuerle]

It hasn't been ported to Intel (as of 10.4.1), because it's Carbon. It's like the only iApp not yet ported. The article you are referring to even specifically says that iTunes was running under emulation on OS X.

"like" the only, or THE only?

[madmaxmedia]

1. Thinksecret has been pretty bad for the last few months. They've missed on pretty much all the big announcements, so their call for an iBook has about as much weight as anyone's here.

2. The whole 'pro/consumer' differentiation in the notebook line is largely cosmetic. With the desktops there are clear feature differences between a PowerMac and say Mini or iMac, with the notebook it's more about shiny aluminum vs. white plastic. Otherwise they are the same, just the cheaper iBooks have lesser specs. The only differences are due to Apple's choices in separating the 2.

The biggest difference to me between the 2 (besides clockspeed) is the PowerBook has better screen and much better keyboard, which I appreciate. But it's not like that's only for pro's, anyone who can afford a PowerBook will find that a benefit.

Anyone using a notebook computer for really pro-level work is taking a big hit in performance, regardless of whether you are using a PowerBook or an iBook.

I think Apple could conceivably announce both at MWSF, but not likely since I think both will get some sort of makeover. Actually, the iBook has gone the longest without a redesign, so maybe they will do that first. You might expect a new PowerBook design, but the current aluminum design is still best in class IMO (way better than the current garish Win notebook look.)

I also am skeptical of $200 iBook price drops. If they do, then it will almost certainly include Intel integrated graphics to save money. The cheapest iBooks could certainly go this route, I think it would be a good idea since Apple could then drop the price a bit. Of course, there would be at least 1 iBook with a decent GPU.

[aswitcher]

1. Thinksecret has been pretty bad for the last few months. They've missed on pretty much all the big announcements, so their call for an iBook has about as much weight as anyone's here.
.


I disagree. TS dont call it unless they have good sources. The fact they have called this makes me think its a cert.

[madmaxmedia]

I disagree. TS dont call it unless they have good sources. The fact they have called this makes me think its a cert.

In the past they have been good. But lately they have been wrong a lot more than they've been right (ever since around that lawsuit...). Let me count the ways-

1. Said the first special event would be ROKR only with absolutely no new iPods (there were already nano leaks by then.)

2. Said in September that there would be no Mac updates until MacWorld 06. Then they said there would be updates at the second special event, and nothing else (no mention of FrontRow or built-in iSight in the iMac though.)

3. Oh no, wait! They say there will be a new iPod after all. But its for sure not going to do video.

They could be right about MacWorld, but it's not like in the past where I have any confidence they have good, solid information.

[kenaustus]

I'm not worried about the Pro -v- consumer markets.

If a user is a pro and needs to see their main apps updated before moving to Mactels, but needs a computer now then the new PMs are fine. independents get to write off the full cost this year against their taxes, including both sides of Social Security taxes, which is a total of 15.3% by itself. Throw in State and Federal taxes and, depending on their tax bracket and state taxes, and they save 40% to 50% of the investment. Makes the new PMs look pretty good, especially since they can get most or all of that money back when they are ready to move to Mactels by selling this years PM to a friend or on ebay. In short, tax breaks and resale values cover the independents who need something now - they will get to use the newest PMs (or PBs), essentially for free. Emulation isn't a concern for them.

In terms of potential releases, look to the processors available in January as they will give you the best indication of what Apple will do. Dual cores indicate PBs and iMacs while older single cores indicate iBooks and Mac minis.

[reflex]

here's what I want-
a black, widescreen 13 inch intel iBook with a 2.5 ghz Pentium M, 64 dedicated graphics memory, 768 mb ram, 6 hr. battery, for US$799. doesn't sound too unreasonable to me.

Not gonna happen. The Pentium M is a fairly expensive cpu and you want the most expensive version of it in a consumer laptop. Not that I wouldn't want this, but wanting doesn't make it so.

[macrumors12345]

"like" the only, or THE only?

"Like" the only, because I'm from California. But if I had to guess, I'd say it's THE only iApp (where iApps include other Apple consumer apps too, like Safari and Mail) that isn't Universal now (in fact, for all I know, iTunes might even be universal by now...the ZDNet ppl were testing with 10.4.1). But I won't guarantee that.

[generik]

Not gonna happen. The Pentium M is a fairly expensive cpu and you want the most expensive version of it in a consumer laptop. Not that I wouldn't want this, but wanting doesn't make it so.

That CPU alone will probably set Apple back by $250-$300.

[agentgraves]

judging from this article (http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=27770), a top-of-the-line Yonah proc will set Apple back $640.

[generik]

judging from this article (http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=27770), a top-of-the-line Yonah proc will set Apple back $640.

Even assuming Apple gets it at 50% off from retail pricing it is still a lot of coin :rolleyes:

I doubt we will see any high end chips used in the iBook though.

[dongmin]

Even assuming Apple gets it at 50% off from retail pricing it is still a lot of coin :rolleyes:

I doubt we will see any high end chips used in the iBook though.I don't think those are 'retail.' The article is talking about what Intel will provide to its 'customers' which I take to me manufracturers.

If this report is indeed accurate, I don't see how Apple can get a Yonah into the iBooks. $210 seems prohibitively expensive, especially if you consider that the total manufacturing cost is probably in the $500-600 range.

So, if we say the iBooks will debut with Dothans, then I don't see why Apple can't bring them out in January, a few months ahead of the PowerBooks. Of course I'm assuming that Apple will hold off on the PBs until the Yonahs are ready and shipping. Lets say a few months lag from when Yonahs ships, then we're looking at March-April for Yonah PBs.

I'm leaning towards iBooks and Minis at MWSF 06.

[Alasta]

So, if we say the iBooks will debut with Dothans, then I don't see why Apple can't bring them out in January, a few months ahead of the PowerBooks. Of course I'm assuming that Apple will hold off on the PBs until the Yonahs are ready and shipping. Lets say a few months lag from when Yonahs ships, then we're looking at March-April for Yonah PBs.

I'm leaning towards iBooks and Minis at MWSF 06.

I agree with your logic. I also feel that the iBook is well overdue for a cosmetic overhaul, and the Intel switch would be a perfect opportunity to do it.

[generik]

I agree with your logic. I also feel that the iBook is well overdue for a cosmetic overhaul, and the Intel switch would be a perfect opportunity to do it.

New CPU = good, but I certainly hope the new iBooks are more resillent unlike the new iPods.

[iEdd]

I doubt the prices are going down, so some moderately priced cpus could be used.
Does anyone else think it's nearing the time where consumer computers (as well as the 12/13" PB) gets Firewire 800?

[generik]

I doubt the prices are going down, so some moderately priced cpus could be used.
Does anyone else think it's nearing the time where consumer computers (as well as the 12/13" PB) gets Firewire 800?

Nope, consumers do not need FW 800.

[ezekielrage_99]

Nope, consumers do not need FW 800.

Doesn't Hunter S Thompson have some sort of a theory that things can never be fast enough? I say faster faster need more speed:D

[generik]

Doesn't Hunter S Thompson have some sort of a theory that things can never be fast enough? I say faster faster need more speed:D

Sure, show Steve the money and you will get faster and faster.

Until a Firewire 1000 or 1600 comes out I doubt Apple will remove yet another perk from their "Power" line.

Remember guys, Apple is telling YOU what you want, and not the other way round. Since there are no competitors to Apple you can either suck it up or just take the high road and go the Microsoft route.

[MacSA]

When will we see superdrives standard on all Apple laptops? (Or, indeed on all Apple computers) It's nearly 2006, and £700 for a laptop with just CDRW? I think thats a bit pricey now - even for Apple.

[Multimedia]

When will we see superdrives standard on all Apple laptops? (Or, indeed on all Apple computers) It's nearly 2006, and £700 for a laptop with just CDRW? I think thats a bit pricey now - even for Apple.Can only guess when BlueRay ships Apple can put Superdrives in everything and make BlueRay the premium drive. Just guessing though. It's a good idea you've thought of. I alwyas thought Combo Drives would be the minimum. But you may be right. :)

[in2themystik2]

I was wondering if anyone with more knowledge than I have (which is not much) could give me any advice. I have been planning to get a lap top very soon and decided that I would switch to Mac and try an ibook. My original plan was to get the current 12" ibook, but now with all the talk of a possible update, I don't know if I should get one now, or wait and see if they update next month.

I guess my concerns are that if I wait, and get one next month if they change them, then there might be some kinks to iron out and I could have problems with it. If I get the current one, I am afraid it will be outdated quickly if they release the new ones next month, although the current has been tried and worked.

I just use the computer for basic use as a consumer, and not for special purposes, like graphic design or anything.

I have talked to a friend who is a mac user and he has given me some of his thoughts, but I was just wondering if anyone else had any opinions, as I have been agonizing over this decision recently! Thank you so much! :confused: :)

[AvSRoCkCO1067]

I was wondering if anyone with more knowledge than I have (which is not much) could give me any advice. I have been planning to get a lap top very soon and decided that I would switch to Mac and try an ibook. My original plan was to get the current 12" ibook, but now with all the talk of a possible update, I don't know if I should get one now, or wait and see if they update next month.

I guess my concerns are that if I wait, and get one next month if they change them, then there might be some kinks to iron out and I could have problems with it. If I get the current one, I am afraid it will be outdated quickly if they release the new ones next month, although the current has been tried and worked.

I just use the computer for basic use as a consumer, and not for special purposes, like graphic design or anything.

I have talked to a friend who is a mac user and he has given me some of his thoughts, but I was just wondering if anyone else had any opinions, as I have been agonizing over this decision recently! Thank you so much! :confused: :)

I love my iBook - buy it now, as there will be NO advantages to an Intel iBook if you're solely running consumer-type programs (i.e. iLife, Office, iWork, web surfing, etc.). Plus, you'll get to avoid the problems with the Intel transition (which are, I believe, somewhat inevitable).

Lastly, if you're still hesitant, consider picking up a refurb. for about 799 (or 200 bucks less than the 12" iBook). They are, of course, the same computer....

[Morn]

Ok.
1.Apple is not going to use a CPU without SSE3 I think, rosetta alraedy makes heavy use of it, dothan is unlikely I think.
2. There will be a single core yonah, maybe they'll use some "celeron yonah" Another reason why i think a powerbook is more likely at macworld, will make full usage of dual core yonah, and having the first dual core laptop will be a major way to announce x86, sounds like Jobs style to me.
3. It'll be hard to make a laptop with an intel processor that's slower than a powerbook, why would you have an ibook that's in some ways better than a powerbook for about 3 months? Why only poeple who are scared of x86 will buy it.
4. powerbook needs a CPU upgrade more than any mac, the ibook and mac mini are consumer products, performance is less important. The powerbook is currently a poor offering for pro users, slow, therefore I don't think it'll be a major issue to move it to x86 first, as many consumers who want a higher end system also buy the powerbook and they'll be happy with x86.

I don't have much faith in this ibook rumor, I think having a powerbook first is both more practical and wiser.

[zap2]

Ok.
1.Apple is not going to use a CPU without SSE3 I think, rosetta alraedy makes heavy use of it, dothan is unlikely I think.
2. There will be a single core yonah, maybe they'll use some "celeron yonah" Another reason why i think a powerbook is more likely at macworld, will make full usage of dual core yonah, and having the first dual core laptop will be a major way to announce x86, sounds like Jobs style to me.
3. It'll be hard to make a laptop with an intel processor that's slower than a powerbook, why would you have an ibook that's in some ways better than a powerbook for about 3 months? Why only poeple who are scared of x86 will buy it.
4. powerbook needs a CPU upgrade more than any mac, the ibook and mac mini are consumer products, performance is less important. The powerbook is currently a poor offering for pro users, slow, therefore I don't think it'll be a major issue to move it to x86 first, as many consumers who want a higher end system also buy the powerbook and they'll be happy with x86.

I don't have much faith in this ibook rumor, I think having a powerbook first is both more practical and wiser.


While those are all great points, if Apple was to release a PRO-laptop many 3rd party Apps will not be readyy for intel Mac OSX and Pro users us more 3rd party App normal

[maverick808]

While those are all great points, if Apple was to release a PRO-laptop many 3rd party Apps will not be readyy for intel Mac OSX and Pro users us more 3rd party App normal

I don't think this is true. The latest Intel Tiger seeds have a version of Rosetta that can convert altivec code. I've heard that on current Intel chips (which are obviously slower than Yonah will be) Photoshop and other pro apps run quite a bit faster under Rosetta than they do natively on a 1.67GHz PowerBook.

So given that any Yonah PowerBook will run all the current versions of the pro apps perfectly and faster in Rosetta than what we currently experience on PPC why would Apple need to wait around for Intel-specific versions if they can get a performance boost right now? Sure it will be even better when they come along but there's certainly no need to hold off the switch since there won't be any loss of apps or performance at all.

[Morn]

Yeah, but well the powerbook is slow and currently as it is is a poor offering to pro users I think. I suspect that a dual core yonah 2ghz or something like that would be quite good at emulating a powerpc, I mean a single g4 1.67ghz would be a hell of a lot slower, even if rosetta is 40% of the speed of native x86 code. You could still emulate performacec level with the current ibook with all the CPU power in a dual core yonah at the worst.

[madmaxmedia]

The 'pro' distinction isn't nearly as relevant when it comes to notebooks. It's not like the PowerBook has 5 RAM slots and 4 PCI slots, the only difference between PB and iB is that the iBook is crippled, and the PowerBook has an aluminum case.

The current PowerBooks are poor anyways, and as another poster mentioned, are in greatest need of an upgrade.

If a fast Intel CPU gives pretty good performance for most apps, they will likely intro an Intel PB first.

What they can then also do is bump the iBooks to near current PB speeds, with a 167MHz bus. That will essentially make the iBooks same as prior-gen PowerBooks.

I don't necessarily think an Intel PB is coming in January, but I do think it makes as much or more sense than an Intel iBook in January.

[mikesjo]

I was wondering if anyone with more knowledge than I have (which is not much) could give me any advice. I have been planning to get a lap top very soon and decided that I would switch to Mac and try an ibook. My original plan was to get the current 12" ibook, but now with all the talk of a possible update, I don't know if I should get one now, or wait and see if they update next month.

I guess my concerns are that if I wait, and get one next month if they change them, then there might be some kinks to iron out and I could have problems with it. If I get the current one, I am afraid it will be outdated quickly if they release the new ones next month, although the current has been tried and worked.

I just use the computer for basic use as a consumer, and not for special purposes, like graphic design or anything.

I have talked to a friend who is a mac user and he has given me some of his thoughts, but I was just wondering if anyone else had any opinions, as I have been agonizing over this decision recently! Thank you so much! :confused: :)

I just ordered my first mac last friday :). The 12" iBook! I was going to wait for the same reasons you mentioned but then the first ones out are usually bugged, it's not till a few months later that they'll become more stable. The nice thing about the current iBook is it's been around for some time! I say get it.

I'll be asking a lot of questions on here in a few weeks ><.

[Morn]

As I see it, you can get serious bugs in any revision regardless of how matured it is. Don't be paranoid about Rev.A, just read macrumors forums for the latest whinges on the products. :) As I say, whinges are what keep products quality.

[steve_hill4]

When people talk about buggy Rev. A products, it's because they have just switched over to comething new. Take the iMac switching to G5. Since then we have had two more revisions, each with minor to mildly significant chages, but the main switch was to G5 which was a bigger step. There was potential for heat issues, screen problems, and much more. Once any bugs get fixed in Rev. B, however many changes they make to what is essentially the same machine, the computer should be better built and more stable.

Take the example of the casing on the Rev. A Alu PowerBooks having problems. This has only been really reported with Rev. A, so people are wary of buying one second hand, or a new Rev. A item. Not me, I will almost certainly go for a Rev. A Intel PB when it is available. MWSF better bring one for me, or I will be very anxious.

[Sunrunner]

As I see it, you can get serious bugs in any revision regardless of how matured it is. Don't be paranoid about Rev.A, just read macrumors forums for the latest whinges on the products. :) As I say, whinges are what keep products quality.

I think that is an oversimplification. The more changes you make to something, the more untested technologies and integrations you have in one box, the more likely you are to have problems and issues. The key then is to have a very robust testing cycle to iron out all of the bugs BEFORE they hit the streets. Honestly Apple has done a pretty good job of doing this IMHO.

[TJOLSON19]

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

I'm sure Apple has something up their sleeve if they intend to release an intel mac as early as January.....Knowing Apple's track record (as well as being a former employee) I wouldn't imagine Steve Job's releasing a poor product simply to get it out ahead of schedule......I am curious however, to see how well Rosetta actually works! From what I've read.....x86 build 10.4.3 solved many compatability issues with Rosetta.....I guess we'll find out in a month!

[Morn]

Yeah, but really, whenever you change something in the design you can get a bug, if the scan line issue on the powerbook teaches us anything it's that a mature product can get a more serious bug than a rev a product quite easily.

[Val-kyrie]

As others point out, I see one of two scenarios. Either the iBk is released alone and is given outdated processors and meager gfx, or the iBk is released alongside the PB and both are given nice updates.

In the former scenario, I would expect
a Dothan processor
a Radeon Mobility x300
maybe larger HDDs and BT 2.0
no change to current form factor

In the latter scenario, I expect the iBk to receive
a dual core 1.67 and 1.88 proc for the 12" and 14" respectively
a Radeon Mobility x600
maybe larger HDDs and BT 2.0
probably widescreen models

In the latter scenario, I expect the PB to receive
a dual core 2.0 and 2.16 proc
an Nvidia 6600 Go and/or 6800 Go with 7800 Go BTO
maybe larger HDDs
no change in currrent form factor

However, with a rumored 13.3" form factor rumored to be released in April, I could see Apple waiting to release new form factors for the PB until the developer's conference in June and for the iBook possibly the convention in Sep. In that case, I really wonder if we won't have to wait until Sep. to see a Yonah release for the iBook. Another kink in all of these discussions is the possibility that the 15" will be updated before the 17"--a rumor circulated earlier. Any way, my mind is at a loss with all of the rumors so I will prepare to be underwhelmed (first scenario) and hope to be overwhelmed (second scenario or better).

BTW, for all of you who keep saying 1.5 GHz single-core Yonahs--the single core is not slated for production until April and it is slated for 1.67 GHz. Any 1.5 GHz single core would be a DOTHAN! That said, if Apple releases a Dothan, I will buy a PC until Merom and Leopard are married into an iBook in 2007. I am tired of waiting.

MWSF announcements - my predictions

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

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

[Alasta]

Everyone seems to be assuming that the iBook and Powerbook brand names will remain after the Intel switch. Let's assume for a moment that the iBook gets renamed 'Alpha', and the Powerbook gets renamed 'Beta'.

Alpha could be released in January and would outperform the current Powerbook, but the Powerbook would still be available for people who need to run PPC applications natively. Beta would then be released later in the year, and would replace the Powerbook, and outperform Alpha.

Thoughts?

[generik]

Everyone seems to be assuming that the iBook and Powerbook brand names will remain after the Intel switch. Let's assume for a moment that the iBook gets renamed 'Alpha', and the Powerbook gets renamed 'Beta'.

Alpha could be released in January and would outperform the current Powerbook, but the Powerbook would still be available for people who need to run PPC applications natively. Beta would then be released later in the year, and would replace the Powerbook, and outperform Alpha.

Thoughts?

Considering the most recent PB revision, I should say that renaming the PB line to "Beta" is a very apt move indeed :rolleyes:

[Photorun]

MWSF announcements - my predictions

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

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

Ever since Seinfeld, Everybody Loves (hates) Raymond, Friends, and other shows went off the air there sure are a lot of unemployed humor writers in these here forums.

[steve_hill4]

Ever since Seinfeld, Everybody Loves (hates) Raymond, Friends, and other shows went off the air there sure are a lot of unemployed humor writers in these here forums.
I agree, I wouldn't want to wait 12 weeks from announcement to shipping, and I don't think Apple would want to announce them 12 weeks before either, by the time they are available, the competition will have moved on.

[generik]

12 weeks is 3 months..

One bloody quarter.

Why even have Macrumors anymore? Apple might as well make their design labs open to public and put glass walls all around their building so visitors can strut in anytime to see how they are doing.

[mdavey]

I agree, I wouldn't want to wait 12 weeks from announcement to shipping, and I don't think Apple would want to announce them 12 weeks before either

It is just a matter of spin - of wordsmithing. When did Apple announce Leopard? Before WWDC '05 and most people expect it to ship immediately after WWDC '06 - over 12 months later.

Likewise, Apple could offer a "first glimpse" of some *Books at MWSF and announce the full feature set, pricing and shipping date at a seperate conference a few weeks later.

When I said "within 12 weeks", I meant the maximum time between announcement and people actually getting their machines, not the most likely period of time. I think there are still people who ordered their PowerMac Quad as soon as the online store listed it, who are still waiting for their order to be fulfilled, aren't there?

Its just a matter of wordsmithing.

[minimax]

Let's be realistic.

A dualcore 1.67 and 1.88 Yonah with X600 dedicated graphics for the iBook?

LMAO Your *not* being realistic.

[BlizzardBomb]

Because an Intel processor costs a lot more than a G4 I'm thinking that the low-end iBook would have Intel Integrated Graphics to save money. The high-end would probably have a Mobility X300 64MB. The iBook is a consumer model after all.

[Mord]

no current intel graphics supports core image, so the ibook would have to have a dedicated graphics card, otherwise it would be a one step forwards (cpu speed) and two steps back (graphics card speed and core imageness)

[BlizzardBomb]

no current intel graphics supports core image, so the ibook would have to have a dedicated graphics card, otherwise it would be a one step forwards (cpu speed) and two steps back (graphics card speed and core imageness)

Good point actually, but I have heard that the Intel processors that could find their way into an iBook cost 2x or 3x more than a G4. I did use the word low-end after all as Think Secret said that one model could possibly be $200 cheaper.

[generik]

I didn't know the G4s are so cheap... and guess what?

the 'Books are all so expensive.

[BlizzardBomb]

I didn't know the G4s are so cheap... and guess what?

the 'Books are all so expensive.

To quote http://blogs.zdnet.com/Murphy/?p=479

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

[steve_hill4]

It is just a matter of spin - of wordsmithing. When did Apple announce Leopard? Before WWDC '05 and most people expect it to ship immediately after WWDC '06 - over 12 months later.

Likewise, Apple could offer a "first glimpse" of some *Books at MWSF and announce the full feature set, pricing and shipping date at a seperate conference a few weeks later.

When I said "within 12 weeks", I meant the maximum time between announcement and people actually getting their machines, not the most likely period of time. I think there are still people who ordered their PowerMac Quad as soon as the online store listed it, who are still waiting for their order to be fulfilled, aren't there?

Its just a matter of wordsmithing.
I know what you are saying, but I just don't see that as too wise. By the time they hit the shelves, they'll be thinking about announcing the Rev. B model, after all, it should ideally be 3-9 months between revisions now, (I say three if Apple follow PC manufacturers and shorten a models time before it's slightly imrpoved replacement comes out, hopefully more like 6 months). It's not really Apple's style to announce hardware so far in advance of shipping, but I do see your point about "within", but they might as well say "from today" and let stocks come as they are ready. Software generally tends to be a different matter, more important to announce well in advance, (e.g Aperture).

[minimax]

To quote http://blogs.zdnet.com/Murphy/?p=479

This really is a piece of misinformed and flawed logic.

Comparing a higher-end Intel CPU at market price against a low-end G4 is a fundamentally wrong comparison. Not only will apple most likely use cheaper celeron M processors for the ibook and mac mini lines, but they get discount on the total package as well. So a discounted Celeron M 1.6 + chipset with IGU would be the price you should compare with the G4 +chipset + GPU. It is just out of the question that Apple would settle with much lower margins and / or horrendous build quality.
All the other speculation is just as silly.

[Morn]

The only real engineering challenge was probably rosetta.

[Randall]

MWSF announcements - my predictions

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

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

You have got to be kidding me... You're still thinking like PPC. Intel's clock speeds are GHz above that. Try this:

15" widescreen Intel PowerBook dual core 3.6GHz - shipping within 12 weeks

The sad thing is that this system will kick the $h1t out of current PPC based Powerbooks, regardless of emulation and the Rosetta nonsense. It will do hula-hoops around the PPC G4s without breaking a sweat. Apple is foaming at the mouth trying to get these babies out the door. It will be a Happy New Year!!

[generik]

You have got to be kidding me... You're still thinking like PPC. Intel's clock speeds are GHz above that. Try this:

15" widescreen Intel PowerBook dual core 3.6GHz - shipping within 12 weeks

The sad thing is that this system will kick the $h1t out of current PPC based Powerbooks, regardless of emulation and the Rosetta nonsense. It will do hula-hoops around the PPC G4s without breaking a sweat. Apple is foaming at the mouth trying to get these babies out the door. It will be a Happy New Year!!

Erm.. Intel has changed their direction to catch up with AMD, they are no longer going for "hotter and faster" chips.

[Cooknn]

You have got to be kidding me... You're still thinking like PPC. Intel's clock speeds are GHz above that. Try this:

15" widescreen Intel PowerBook dual core 3.6GHz - shipping within 12 weeksThe fastest Yonah clock speed will be 2.16Ghz (http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=27770) (Dual Core), but that is what is due in January. Somehow I doubt they will hit 3.6Ghz in 12 weeks...

[Multimedia]

I was wondering if anyone with more knowledge than I have (which is not much) could give me any advice. I have been planning to get a lap top very soon and decided that I would switch to Mac and try an ibook. My original plan was to get the current 12" ibook, but now with all the talk of a possible update, I don't know if I should get one now, or wait and see if they update next month.

I guess my concerns are that if I wait, and get one next month if they change them, then there might be some kinks to iron out and I could have problems with it. If I get the current one, I am afraid it will be outdated quickly if they release the new ones next month, although the current has been tried and worked.

I just use the computer for basic use as a consumer, and not for special purposes, like graphic design or anything.

I have talked to a friend who is a mac user and he has given me some of his thoughts, but I was just wondering if anyone else had any opinions, as I have been agonizing over this decision recently! Thank you so much! :confused: :)Wait for the Show. The Intel iBooks will be significantly faster than the current PPC models. They will also come with iLife '06. You should definitely wait for the SteveNote January 10, 2006.

[Peace]

Man with all this talk concerning MacSuperWorld I'm wondering how Apple sales are doing.

[Randall]

Erm.. Intel has changed their direction to catch up with AMD, they are no longer going for "hotter and faster" chips.

You're right. I guess Intel is stepping away from the space heater architecture. (After they brainwashed everyone in the PC market that more clock speed = better processor). Taking a lesson from AMD might do Intel some good. Taking a beach shovel a million times to dig the same hole that can be dug by a backhoe in a fraction of the trips. Faster doesn't always equate to better. It's the amount of instructions that can be executed per cycle that makes your processor robust. (And can save you power).

[rickag]

As others point out, I see one of two scenarios. Either the iBk is released alone and is given outdated processors and meager gfx, or the iBk is released alongside the PB and both are given nice updates.

In the former scenario, I would expect
a Dothan processor
a Radeon Mobility x300
maybe larger HDDs and BT 2.0
no change to current form factor

In the latter scenario, I expect the iBk to receive
a dual core 1.67 and 1.88 proc for the 12" and 14" respectively
a Radeon Mobility x600
maybe larger HDDs and BT 2.0
probably widescreen models

In the latter scenario, I expect the PB to receive
a dual core 2.0 and 2.16 proc
an Nvidia 6600 Go and/or 6800 Go with 7800 Go BTO
maybe larger HDDs
no change in currrent form factor

However, with a rumored 13.3" form factor rumored to be released in April, I could see Apple waiting to release new form factors for the PB until the developer's conference in June and for the iBook possibly the convention in Sep. In that case, I really wonder if we won't have to wait until Sep. to see a Yonah release for the iBook. Another kink in all of these discussions is the possibility that the 15" will be updated before the 17"--a rumor circulated earlier. Any way, my mind is at a loss with all of the rumors so I will prepare to be underwhelmed (first scenario) and hope to be overwhelmed (second scenario or better).

BTW, for all of you who keep saying 1.5 GHz single-core Yonahs--the single core is not slated for production until April and it is slated for 1.67 GHz. Any 1.5 GHz single core would be a DOTHAN! That said, if Apple releases a Dothan, I will buy a PC until Merom and Leopard are married into an iBook in 2007. I am tired of waiting.

I agree with you on the use of Dothan in an iBook.
But I think there will also be 2 other iBooks
1.42 GHz G4 12"
1.67 GHz G4 14"
upgraded graphics + larger hard drive.

The Powerbooks will be
2.0 GHz G4 MPC 8641 w/ PCI express graphics
2.2 GHz G4 MPC 8641 w/ PCI express graphics

as soon as the MPC 8641 migrates to 65 nm process then they go Dual core. Uh, excuse me, I'm being called by the nurse, time to take my medication.

[Randall]

I agree with you on the use of Dothan in an iBook.
But I think there will also be 2 other iBooks
1.42 GHz G4 12"
1.67 GHz G4 14"
upgraded graphics + larger hard drive.

The Powerbooks will be
2.0 GHz G4 MPC 8641 w/ PCI express graphics
2.2 GHz G4 MPC 8641 w/ PCI express graphics

as soon as the MPC 8641 migrates to 65 nm process then they go Dual core. Uh, excuse me, I'm being called by the nurse, time to take my medication.

Wrong. The new Powerbooks will have dual core Intel inside. There will be no more PPC upgrades to this line. Mark it down.

[rickag]

Wrong. The new Powerbooks will have dual core Intel inside. There will be no more PPC upgrades to this line. Mark it down.

Read the last part of my post. A little sarcasm to lighten up the mood.
:p

[Randall]

Read the last part of my post. A little sarcasm to lighten up the mood.
:p

haha nice. I dunno how I missed that. :p

[Mord]

OS X needs SSE3, thus no mac will use a dothan based pentium M.

[findpankaj]

deleted from here...sorry

[Randall]

Lots of threads on apple-intel pairing...thought this is the one for my post.
It seems that apple is going to launch an ibook with "intel inside". This may be a totally new model or a remake of ibook 14" G4 which is not so well accepted in the market (don't know why). I bought an ibook 14" last month and i am happy with that. Considering a scenario where 14" ibook is launched with intel, how long apple is going to support the G4 one's?

Apple will continue to support the PPC architecture for at least the length of your extended care plan and probably longer then that. They want the transition to be as smooth as possible, and they do not want to alienate their users at all.

Now take this, I have taken an apple care plan for 3 years so i would expect to get full support till the end of Nov 2008. IS apple going to linger that long with G4 ibooks and specially if intel one's become huge hits.Apple wants to switch out all of their old (read: ancient) G4 processors out and put Intel Yonah processors in ASAP. A full switch is planned for the end of 2006, so you can bet that all Macs will be Intel inside by the beginning of 2007. But that still doesn't change the fact that Apple will continue to support the PPC architecture in everything they do. OS X 10.5 Leoppard will be coming out at the end of 2006, and it will fully support PPC (your G4) and Intel Macs from the same installation disc using "fat binaries" that are precompiled to work for both PPC and Intel Macs.

What about the software? Are people going to divert all their attention towards intel platform ibook (or may be for all macs). I don't think that they will burn time and effort to release the s/w for all the flavors of mac. I think this is the problem with all the mac users.
I think that developers will choose to support both architectures for the near future. They want to help make it a smooth transtion as well. I'm sure 99% of the developers out there have a PPC based Mac and are going though the same feelings that you are. In many cases, the software applications are such high level, that a simple recompile with the -x86 flag set will enable their same code to run 100% compatable with both architectures with the use of fat binaries. Other developers that have large projects that are hardware dependent cannot do a simple recompile, and if they have no previous experience programming for x86 hardware instructions, they are ripping their hair out as we speak. The transition ranges from trivial all the way to nightmare. Apple is aware of this, and it is a calculated risk. They feel that we will have a smooth transition, and I hope that they are right.

I read in the same article that steve jobs wants to have innovation as his main strategy to sell macs in the market and so he needs intel (low power consumption processors). So that means innovation is over for us???
Don't be ridiculous. Intel doesn't mean the end of innovation for Apple. In fact, it could mean a beginning of innovation. Finally Apple will have the freedom of low power and high yielding processors to put into their mobile line. This switch to x86 could possibly be the best thing that's ever happend to Apple. It is more then possible that many Windows only applications that rely on x86 architecture could be ported over to OS X, since they will now both use the same instruction set. Granted the OSes themselves are still very different, but hardware (x86 architecture) dependent core applications such as video encoding and processing engines optimized for x86 could be ported over to Mac in a slightly easier fassion. Not to mention the future opportunity (if you saw fit) to have your Mac dual boot either OS X or Windows. Again a benefit to the x86 architecture.

Hmmmm...i am already feeling alienated even before first intel mac is out in market :D
I haven't noticed such transformation in the PC processor world..Only thing I know is AMD and INTEL PC's. But then I think they are from the same family of micro processors and hence no issues at all with compatibilty.
I don't think this is the case with G4/G5 vs INTEL. Don't feel alienated. Apple wants to make it's customers feel as comfortable as possible during the transition. I know how you feel though, if I bought a PPC mac and then less then a year later they started offering a whole different architecture, then I would be pissed off bigtime. It's understandable. But I would guess that some/most 3rd party vendors (Adobe for instance) will be much slower in fully porting their underlieing code to the x86 architecture. (This is the reason for the Rosetta project) to use software based emulation to "spoof" a PPC architecture for the x86 Macs that cannot natively run the PPC based applications. So PPC still holds the upper hand in this respect, and will continue to do so probably at least well into 2007.

This kind of experiments are being done in ipod market where now a days ipod mini/ipod (old) is not available. but then this is only ipod just a music player....

I wonder what would happen to old mac platform ... die a silent/gradual death??
See above answers. Apple will try their best to make it a smooth transition for everyone.

[rickag]

haha nice. I dunno how I missed that. :p

Someone else needs to take their medication :eek:

http://blogs.zdnet.com/Murphy/?p=479
From the article
"The obvious answer is to stick to PowerPC for another generation - pushing the first Intel products into 2007. IBM has a low power (13 Watt) G5 that would be a big winner in new PowerBooks, and Freescale's 8641, a dual-core PowerPC G4 with integrated system logic and four Gigabit Ethernet media-access controllers, offers exactly the price/performance combination Apple needs to give both the iBook and Mini big performance boosts without changing retail price or cutting their own margins."

[Randall]

Someone else needs to take their medication :eek:

http://blogs.zdnet.com/Murphy/?p=479
This guy has a hard-on for the PPC. Switch to intel now and put this guy out of his misery. :D

[madmaxmedia]

Are his price numbers correct? $72 for G4, and $240 per unit for the two year old, 32bit, 1.8Ghz Pentium M Yonah predecessor? (both are volume prices)

If so, that's quite a bit of a challenge there for Apple. I would actually expect PPC consumer computers for awhile, and the pro machines to switch first.

OTOH, if Win computers are generally cheaper, how can there be such a disparity in the prices for the CPU's for budget machines? Even Apple doesn't have a tremendous margin on the Mac Mini and iBooks.

[Randall]

Are his price numbers correct? $72 for G4, and $240 per unit for the two year old, 32bit, 1.8Ghz Pentium M Yonah predecessor? (both are volume prices)Yonah is not two years old. It hasen't even hit the public market yet. Just because it's part of a previous line of processors doesn't mean that you can say it's it's as old as that line of processors is. Come on now.

[madmaxmedia]

Yonah is not two years old. It hasen't even hit the public market yet. Just because it's part of a previous line of processors doesn't mean that you can say it's it's as old as that line of processors is. Come on now.

I wasn't even sure what he meant by '2 years old' since obviously the G4 is older. I just copied and pasted his description (although I guess I made a mistake, I should have said 'Yonah predecessor' and not 'Yonah'.)

Nonetheless, is the Pentium M chip that much more expensive than the G4?

[Randall]

I wasn't even sure what he meant by '2 years old' since obviously the G4 is older. I just copied and pasted his description (although I guess I made a mistake, I should have said 'Yonah predecessor' and not 'Yonah'.)

Nonetheless, is the Pentium M chip that much more expensive than the G4?It is, although I don't think that Apple is paying those prices for them. I am sure bulk discounts are in order and do apply. Intel is foaming at the mouth to be able to supply Apple with their processors. Exactly how much per chip Apple is paying is anybody's guess. Since the G4 is so so very old, modern fab techinques are more then likely allowing IBM to pump those babies out at "a dime a dozen" to coin a phrase. The G4 is probably one of the cheapest computer processors to manufacture at the moment, due to it's old age. I don't have exact numbers, so I can't say for certain though.

[madmaxmedia]

Very interesting, thanks for the reply.

If the Pentium M CPU's are signficantly more expensive (whatever the actual Apple price is), that would seem to be an argument to release a PowerBook before an iBook, especially since the newer Pentium M's are touted as being significantly faster than the G4.

Of course, the flip side to that is native vs. emulated code, and how many of the major apps will be native in the next say 6 months.

Funny, just going by price you could almost argue for a dual CPU Mac with a Pentium M and a G4 for non-Intel native apps. (of course this is not actually realistic, just an idea based on G4 prices.)

I think the biggest performance hogs are going to be Photoshop and Dreamweaver as far as emulated code goes. Office will not be Intel-native for awhile, but those apps are generally less CPU intensive anyway (at least in terms of how most users use the apps.)

It is, although I don't think that Apple is paying those prices for them. I am sure bulk discounts are in order and do apply. Intel is foaming at the mouth to be able to supply Apple with their processors. Exactly how much per chip Apple is paying is anybody's guess. Since the G4 is so so very old, modern fab techinques are more then likely allowing IBM to pump those babies out at "a dime a dozen" to coin a phrase. The G4 is probably one of the cheapest computer processors to manufacture at the moment, due to it's old age. I don't have exact numbers, so I can't say for certain though.

[Joe2000]

Who thinks the intel 'books will have a new case design?

I'd like to think they will! I LOVE APPLE DESIGN, WHO DOESNT!

-Joe

[macrumors12345]

Yes, I do ACTUALLY use Stata -- on a G4 Digital Audio, a Powerbook, and a Pentium IV at work. While I know it has not been optimized on a G5, Stata themselves state that it benefits from the dual FPU units on the G5. I encourage you to take a look at comments on the Stata listserv that refer directly to this, such as this one (http://www.stata.com/statalist/archive/2003-06/msg00525.html). There is no benefit to optimizing Stata for Altivec, however. Single-precision Altivec wouldn't do it any good anyway. So on the G4 you're left with one FPU unit and no vector processing. Sort of Pentium III-ish, in other words.

Given that neither G4 nor the more limited G5 Altivec will do this software any good, I presume by lack of G5 optimization, you must be referring to lack of multiprocessing support? If so, I have a question for you -- is there a significant difference for non-SMP software between dual processors and a dual core processor?

The really depressing and sobering reality check part of your post is the news that Stata isn't even in the right compiling software for Universal Binary . . . . sounds like a project for Stata 10, I'm afraid. But the eternal optimist in me remembers how quick they were with Carbonizing Stata 7, a process completed and posted by August 2001 (and that was a mid-version upgrade, not a paid one).

...I was shocked (Stata did quickly release a Universal binary version of Stata 9). Kudos to them. Now I wonder when Stata 10 is coming out...