No Keynote at Apple Expo Paris

[Chundles]

Macworld is reporting that there will be no formal presentation or Keynote at the Paris Mac Expo, Apple execs will be in attendance including Steve Jobs but there will be no "Stevenote."


Hmmmm...... What's going on?

[Daveway]

Ohhh Nooo!!1!

I don't believe you. Steve loves Paris.

Link?

EDIT: http://www.macworld.com/news/2005/09...note/index.php

****!!! Mother Quaker on a Holy Mountain.

I'm confused. It states that "Apple on Monday said there will be no.....", yet it's only 2am.

I didn't know Apple released press releases at 1am.

[Chundles]

OK, this may very well be true, it's coming from all the right sources and if so, the 7th September event better bloody well be a dead-set corker or so help me god heads will be smashed.

[devilot]

Originally Posted by Daveway

I'm confused. It states that "Apple on Monday said there will be no.....", yet it's only 2am.

I didn't know Apple released press releases at 1am.

Eh, I'm local... rather close to 'tino (what we folk call Cupertino) and it's just past midnight-- 12:16ish am. But yes, interesting that Apple is releasing info at this hour, nonetheless.

[katie ta achoo]

*running in slow-mo*
Noooooo!!!


I wonder if they'll have a video of the Q&A on the web site. I'd like to watch it...

I'll dispatch a writer from my local paper.

writer: So, Mr. Jobs, if that is your real name, why exactly ARE you not giving a keynote at this expo?
Jobs: Well--
writer, interrupting: I'M SICK OF YOUR LIES!! WHERE IS KATIE'S-- err... MY POWERBOOK G5?

[jimN]

You can't help but feel that it is just one slap in the face after another. How on earth can their stock price being doing so well when their so called 'exciting power pc updates' have so far yielded nothing new or exciting?

[iMeowbot]

Originally Posted by jimN

You can't help but feel that it is just one slap in the face after another. How on earth can their stock price being doing so well when their so called 'exciting power pc updates' have so far yielded nothing new or exciting?

No "exciting power pc updates" were promised, only "great" in the same breath that current offerings were called "great". I wouldn't expect anything more than speed bumps before next year.

[jimN]

Originally Posted by iMeowbot

No "exciting power pc updates" were promised, only "great" in the same breath that current offerings were called "great". I wouldn't expect anything more than speed bumps before next year.

Pedant! There's been nothing 'great' since the intel announcement IMHO. Maybe this is how Steve punishes think secret for publishing the specs of the new powerbooks over a month and a half early. Damn him.

[jfmartin]

Originally Posted by Chundles

Macworld is reporting that there will be no formal presentation or Keynote at the Paris Mac Expo, Apple execs will be in attendance including Steve Jobs but there will be no "Stevenote."


Hmmmm...... What's going on?

To me, this mean that the sept 7 event will be the MAIN event... I don't think Apple would have rented the Moscone Center just to co-present a new product that Motorola is the main creator... yes Apple did put the iTunes in the new phone but is that a real new thing since the first iPod came out ?

I think Apple will show us munch of stuff this week, all iPod related... new minis, the iPhone, new shuffle, maybe some thing new on the Airport express side too... but, this is not just a iPhone, for sure... so Apple did cancel the keynote to make more room to do a follow up of the sept 7th announcements... since this summer, Apple is trying the keep the press busy, really busy (iPod photo merged, might mouse), then the sept 7th, after, may be in october or november, there will be something new or a few upgrade...

To me, Apple is much more clerver than it used to be in 90's... they now seems to be very organized and reactive of market conditions... the momentum of the sales for Mac products is still high and they will make new announcement on the Mac side when the timing will be there (sales starting to deteriorate for example before Mactel machine - oct 2005 - jan 2006 time frame).

JF

[BRLawyer]

For the first time I feel like writing this...

Now it seems that Apple is REALLY giving a lot of attention to iPod and media crap, in detriment of the REAL DEAL Macs...

Rest assured, people...NO KEYNOTE = NO NEW MAC PRODUCTS.

The 7th September announcement will ONLY cover new iPod Minis, Shuffles and the Moto phone...so the Paris Expo will be MOST BORING show ever...trust me.

At least I haven't bought any tickets from Switzerland to France for that...oh boy! Where are those Pentium-smoking G3s of our heydays?????

WAKE UP, APPLE! POWER UP!

[quigleybc]

Well, this just raises my expectations for Sept. 7th. I better see new iPod socks or I'm gonna freak out!!

[plastique45]

I don't want to rub it in, but why do you guys think Apple HAD to switch to Intel if great new PowerPC chips were about to be available to Apple?

Motorola is about to go from 1.67GHz with no L3 cache to 1.7GHz with L3 Cache.... WOW, 30mHz more and 2mb of cache!

IBM? Maybe dual core G5's before the 64-bit Intel Chip transition in 2007, but I doubt they can pull their fingers out of their nose fast enough to get them ready before Q1 2006.

They'll probably have to overclock and Watercool a mild G5 upgrade like they did with the 2.2 and 2.3GHz to make people think they had a 2.5 & 2.7GHz chip...

[link92]

Originally Posted by plastique45

They'll probably have to overclock and Watercool a mild G5 upgrade like they did with the 2.2 and 2.3GHz to make people think they had a 2.5 & 2.7GHz chip...

They are not overclocked. They are sold by IBM to Apple as 2.5GHz/2.7GHz G5s which require watercooling.

[AidenShaw]

Originally Posted by link92

They are not overclocked. They are sold by IBM to Apple as 2.5GHz/2.7GHz G5s which require watercooling.

When IBM was selling the PPC970 at 1.6GHz in the JS20 there were comments by IBM that IBM didn't consider the chip stable enough to run at 2.0 GHz (which is what Apple was clocking the same chip at).

By any normal definition of "overclock", Apple is pushing the envelope with these systems. If "requiring watercooling" doesn't hint of "overclock", you should back away from the RDF for a while.

IBM could say that they're "3.6 GHz chips that require immersion in liquid nitrogen" - and it would still be "overclocking".

There are companies selling Intel chips overclocked to 4GHz and more - you just need to screen the chips and give them very good cooling systems.

It's not like overclocking is illegal or anything. Apple sells and warranties a PPC970 system at 2.7 GHz, and presumably has a cooling system (and thermal control system) to make it stable and long-lived. Nothing illegal here, although if the G5's would crash and burn up the class action lawyers might ask some questions about the "2.2 GHz" stamped on the chips in Apple's 2.7 GHz machines....

[solvs]

Originally Posted by AidenShaw

By any normal definition of "overclock", Apple is pushing the envelope with these systems. If "requiring watercooling" doesn't hint of "overclock", you should back away from the RDF for a while.

Um, the definition of overclock is to clock the CPU over what it's rated by the manufacturer. Since Apple and IBM are the manufacturers, how can it be overclocked? Watercooling does not equal overclocked. It equals hot. But quiet. I guess those P4s are overclocked too huh?

[treblah]

Originally Posted by link92

They are not overclocked. They are sold by IBM to Apple as 2.5GHz/2.7GHz G5s which require watercooling.

Source?

[chatin]

MS seems to be self destructing so why not sit on the ball and run out the clock.

[psycho bob]

Originally Posted by plastique45

I don't want to rub it in, but why do you guys think Apple HAD to switch to Intel if great new PowerPC chips were about to be available to Apple?

Motorola is about to go from 1.67GHz with no L3 cache to 1.7GHz with L3 Cache.... WOW, 30mHz more and 2mb of cache!

IBM? Maybe dual core G5's before the 64-bit Intel Chip transition in 2007, but I doubt they can pull their fingers out of their nose fast enough to get them ready before Q1 2006.

They'll probably have to overclock and Watercool a mild G5 upgrade like they did with the 2.2 and 2.3GHz to make people think they had a 2.5 & 2.7GHz chip...

You go with what you got simple as that. If Apple have the chips they should bite the bullet and use them regardless of how small the updates may be. The last two years have been a nightmare and Apple can blame the chip makers all they want but they haven't helped. Their innovation has sucked and adoption on new technologies such as better GPU's etc is appalling. They can't even give the ipod a decent update anymore, just what are they doing?! I want BT for streaming, larger sizes not dropping higher capacities to skim a little more profit.

The 2.5/2/7GHz G5's were not over clocked nor did they require Watercooling in the same ways P4's don't. Current Intel desktop chips run far hotter than G5's, Apple did it to ensure we got quiet computers, blow enough air and they will be cooled quite happily but noise levels will increase.

Personally I don't think Apple would use dual core PPC even if they could right now. They are geared for Intel and seem blind to everything else around them. Place your bets now for how long into the Intel move it will be before things go off the rails whether it be poor chips, pirated software, no innovation, poor sales etc etc

[aegisdesign]

Originally Posted by plastique45

I don't want to rub it in, but why do you guys think Apple HAD to switch to Intel if great new PowerPC chips were about to be available to Apple?

Motorola is about to go from 1.67GHz with no L3 cache to 1.7GHz with L3 Cache.... WOW, 30mHz more and 2mb of cache!

7448 has no L3 cache. The L2 cache is 1MB (twice that of 7447A) and the altivec unit does out of order instructions now. Even at the same clockspeed there's the potential for 10 to 25% speed increases.

They've not announced speeds though the PegasOS developers have said they've had 1.8Ghz prototypes since the start of this year. It replaces the 7447A which has a max quoted speed of 1.42Ghz. Apple always get faster chips than Moto/Freescale announce as the requirements of a desktop/laptop CPU are different to the embedded market Freescale announce to.

It's also a lot cooler too.

Originally Posted by plastique45

IBM? Maybe dual core G5's before the 64-bit Intel Chip transition in 2007, but I doubt they can pull their fingers out of their nose fast enough to get them ready before Q1 2006.

Apple are only using 32bit Intel. Xcode2.1 generates 32bit code. They've not said anything about a 64bit transition which will have to be done at some point too. It's going to be a hell of a train ride for developers in the next few years.

Originally Posted by plastique45

They'll probably have to overclock and Watercool a mild G5 upgrade like they did with the 2.2 and 2.3GHz to make people think they had a 2.5 & 2.7GHz chip...

The power requirements are less than the current chips so they don't need such drastic cooling to keep them as quiet as Apple like.

[AidenShaw]

Originally Posted by JFreak

of course xcode is 32bit right now, as the developer boxes in fact use a 32bit pentium inside.

Originally Posted by xlr8yourmac

http://www.xlr8yourmac.com/archives/jun05/060805.html

Info on the Mac X86/Pentium 4 Development system

They are using a Pentium 4 660. This is a 3.6 GHz chip. It supports 64 bit extensions, but Apple does not support that *yet*.

http://www.intel.com/products/proces...ium4/index.htm

Almost all of the current desktop and server chips from Intel support the 64-bit extensions. Of course, Intel is still selling older chips that are 32-bit only - but Apple is buying 64-bit chips.

[iGary]

*hugs his PPC chips again*

[psycho bob]

Originally Posted by JFreak

so? that tells nothing about the product they're going to release for general public. of course xcode is 32bit right now, as the developer boxes in fact use a 32bit pentium inside. but that tells nothing about the real product, because the whole purpose of those rental developer boxes is to get developers SWITCHING TO XCODE -- and once that transition is completed, apple can add whatever architechture support to the xcode and do the switching work for the developers. majority of software will just run.

point being, the first intel mac apple SELLS might just as well be a custom-made fantasy-land 128bit RISC intel cpu. if software has been developed with xcode, it will compile against that fantasy cpu after xcode update just fine.

get it?

apple has said to switch to intel, but that's all we know. everything else is speculation.

The release of the developer boxes has nothing to with xcode specifically. A PPC mac can compile x86 code using the latest version of xcode. The developer boxes are aimed at giving 3rd party software makers like Adobe something to test with. Personally I see it as being rather pointless at this stage as Apple themselves have said they will continue PPC support thus forcing most other makers to do the same. Most software over the coming years will be hybrids to run on both types of machine. Most major software developers will not use xcode to compile, just as now most will use specialised ones like IBM's XL.

We do know that the Intel macs will be x86/x84 based, why else ship a developer box in that config it wouldn't get you anywhere. Apple stated they had continually developed x86 along with PPC they made no mention of any other chip types and I cannot see Intel starting to make something else just for Apple. Intel do make over CPU's but the whole reason for moving from PPC was to get faster development and hopefully more speed for general applications. Going to an obscure CPU will not give Apple that. Apple could have gone and used a pure POWER 5 design which would have given a lot of power and multiple cores before anyone else but costs, heat and price would have been far too high. Just because something exists does not mean it can be used (although I wish they had in this case).

People need to stop knocking Powerbooks, they are solid feature packed machines that do a job dependably and quickly. Could they be faster yes would I swap mine for anything else no way. Sony do indeed make some very nice computers but having used two of their recent machines in the last few months alongside my Powerbook it still ain't a mac. The actual design sucks regardless of how it looks. The 17in VAIO feels plastic and cheap, the software comes on the internal hard drive with no disks (I hate that), spec isn't all that amazing, disk drive still uses a fragile and cheap draw (PC companies use slot loaders!), xbrite technology is a joke it looks all glossy and bright but reflects and washes out badly in everyday conditions, ports have silly floppy doors to cover them, trackpad is appalling, it is heavy, power adaptor is huge (something so simple yet only Apple get it right, this is important when travelling), it is heavy, it just ain't a mac. I'M NO MAC FANBOY, I know my Powerbook could be a lot better (CPU, GPU, disk drive (DL), more ports) but I also realise that as a whole it is the best laptop available.

[JFreak]

Originally Posted by psycho bob

I cannot see Intel starting to make something else just for Apple. Intel do make over CPU's but the whole reason for moving from PPC was to get faster development and hopefully more speed for general applications. Going to an obscure CPU will not give Apple that.

apple is probably going to use stock parts, agreed, but what if... what if apple still thinks about developing altivec by themselves, and asking intel to build such a cpu that has apple-designed simd unit? a lot of multimedia content creation apps depend on altivec and obviously apple needs to address that issue.

Originally Posted by joshuawaire

Let's hope Rosetta continues to get optimized.

let's hope rosetta some day converts altivec instructions into whatever simd unit the apple-chosen x86 cpu is using. currently rosetta only converts ppc instructions to x86 and nothing else.

apps that use altivec WILL NOT RUN VIA ROSETTA.

Originally Posted by generik

any products Apple releases now are merely going to be excuses to hold off the releases of the wonderful upcoming MacIntel machines. So what if Apple announces a, oh, 1.7Ghz G4 PowerBook!11!11111!, in MWP? So it is 70Mhz faster!!! Are you going to buy it?

if it has a L3 cache, then it'd be a huge improvement over the previous model. the reason why i could see this rumor happening is that us pro folks are not switching our production systems to a rev-A intel macs and we would really benefit from great last-generation ppc powerbooks and powermacs. and steve knows this, too. it's a possibility.

[JFreak]

Originally Posted by plastique45

Motorola is about to go from 1.67GHz with no L3 cache to 1.7GHz with L3 Cache.... WOW, 30mHz more and 2mb of cache!

actually, the L3 cache makes a huge difference. i have an ancient 667MHz powerbook (that has cache) that is A LOT faster than the first-generation 12" powerbooks that run at 867MHz (about 30% faster clock speed) without the L3 cache.

of course, it depends on the application, but in audio world the L3 cache is a killer.

Originally Posted by Bregalad

My thinking is that there will be updated PowerBooks this month, but Steve doesn't want to have the whole world watching him try to hype an 8% increase in clock speed.

who cares about the clock speed anyway? if the new powerbooks get L3 cache (as in a rumour) then the chip can actually run SLOWER and still be faster in the real world.

to repeat myself, an older 667MHz powerbook with a L3 cache is a lot faster than a newer 867MHz powerbook without L3. in real world, doing pro audio work. if i can get 10% more processing power by dropping clock speed 20%, then i'm ready to do that. work is done in a real world instead of a fantasy land where bigger is always better.

Originally Posted by Bregalad

The PowerMacs aren't selling well at all.

that's because powermacs are mainly sold for professionals and most professionals had their hardware purchases on hold for the second G5 powermac revision. now that they did purchase what they needed before the third revision, it is understandable that sales of 3rd rev look bad compared to 2nd rev, which was huge figure if you can remember.

point being, powermac sales tend to be rather linear in the long run. there's nothing to worry; on the contrary, if the 3rd rev powermacs don't sell well, there's going to be a lot of "refurb" powermacs for sale once they release the 4th rev

Originally Posted by aegisdesign

Apple are only using 32bit Intel. Xcode2.1 generates 32bit code. They've not said anything about a 64bit transition which will have to be done at some point too. It's going to be a hell of a train ride for developers in the next few years.

so? that tells nothing about the product they're going to release for general public. of course xcode is 32bit right now, as the developer boxes in fact use a 32bit pentium inside. but that tells nothing about the real product, because the whole purpose of those rental developer boxes is to get developers SWITCHING TO XCODE -- and once that transition is completed, apple can add whatever architechture support to the xcode and do the switching work for the developers. majority of software will just run.

point being, the first intel mac apple SELLS might just as well be a custom-made fantasy-land 128bit RISC intel cpu. if software has been developed with xcode, it will compile against that fantasy cpu after xcode update just fine.

get it?

apple has said to switch to intel, but that's all we know. everything else is speculation.

[iAlan]

If Apple doesn't release any new hardware (and not just minor speed bumps) within the next 6-8 weeks will you wait for thevMacIntel stuff before you buy?

If you , and alot of others answer 'Yes' then Apple may see lean times through end 2006?

I was thinking about a new G5 but I will probably wait till MacIntel products....

What are your thoughts?