heisetax said:
nope, they don't manufacturer them anymore. not exactly sure where, but china sounds about right.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Analysys Expect Intel Macs in January
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
nope, they don't manufacturer them anymore. not exactly sure where, but china sounds about right.
heisetax said:
Sounds like FUD to me...Apple has several manufacturing facilities, either owned by itself or outsourced...my iMac G5 Rev. B, for example, has been manufactured in Cork, Ireland...they also have factories in Taiwan, South Korea, U.S. (I think) and China.
Rosetta is already operating well, so I don't know what you're talking about; the top-end programs like PS will be ready by the end of 2006, so no "big hit" will occur for Apple.
And if you talk about MHz, we all know sheer numbers don't mean performance...a Sun Niagara II runs at about 1.4GHz...who cares if it's nominally slow than a P4, when it performs so much better?
To conclude, Intel Macs will run AT LEAST as fast as PPC counterparts, with the temporary exception of top-tier Altivec products...that's all.
BRLawyer said:
from where I stand it seems like the pro apps that use the most system resources are the ones made by Apple. so I'd guess the Intel Power Macs/PowerBooks will wait until Apple's pro apps run perfectly as universal binaries, at which time they'll immediately jump to market and make all of the competition that hasn't ported to Intel yet look bad by showing how much faster their own apps run.
I'm certainly hoping the Intel PowerBooks will get faster than the current antiquated offerings, but I'd be willing to take a hit in speed for a laptop with longer battery life than my iPod Shuffle. the only reason I don't have a PowerBook yet (money aside) is the 5.5 hour battery life even in Apple's rather optimistic eyes. if it can go without being plugged in, it had better go all day like that.
edit: reading back a few pages, I want to add I'm firmly in the PowerBook-first camp. why?
-PowerBooks are pushing the limits of the G4 processor now and are screaming for an update, while the iBooks are being held back to avoid encroaching on PB territory. releasing an Intel PB would let the iBooks expand into that space while still maintaining the space between the two.
-iBooks are used largely by students, so it would make sense to release them in time for back to school. most of the rumours are saying the rollout starts in January, when the iBook would make less sense.
-I seem to recall Intel waiting on "certain manufacturers" to release Yonah, so they are probably putting pressure on Apple to release something that showcases the full capabilities of the processor - both speed and battery life. ergo, PB.
-it just makes sense to start upgrading from the top of the line not the bottom.
-I really really want an Intel PB before I leave this place in May. so I gave Steve a call and asked if he'd be so kind as to rush the PBs into market.
Randall said:How am I a troll? Because I'm an Intel "fanboy"? Puh-leese. The betamax vs VHS comparison is not correct. If that were the case, then one of these architectures would be a total failure, and I don't think that's the case at all. But if you insist to use it, then guess wich architecture would equate to betamax? Yup you guessed it... and betamax was a complete and total failure. IMO that is still a terrible annalogy for what we're talking about here. I know a lot about the x86 architecture, I am a computer engineer and I've had the unplesentry of writing assembly code for both RISC and CISC architectures. And to be honest, Reduced Instruction Set Computers are the way to go. More instructions, but much more streightforward. So in a way I am sad to see the PowerPC and RISC architecture to leave the Mac. Developers welcome to assembly hell, where CISC is your friend. Who knows, maybe lots of people love CISC assembly. Sick bastards.
PPC on the desktop is a failure otherwise Apple wouldnt be switching. Even IBM and Freescale say they are not interested in the desktop market (anymore). Just like V2000 and Betamax were superior, VHS market dominance forced them to withdraw from the market. A clean RISC architecture is still superior but without proper investment it just isnt competitive.
And yes, when you are 'blabla-ing' someone with a decent refute to your original claim (that the G4 never was superior to the pentium / athlon), making unfunded and misinforming claims (there were several in this thread already) you are engaging in trolling behaviour.
jade said:
Apple doesn't make higher margins because the pro margins are high. That's circular. Nor does it make higher margins because notebooks are higher margins than desktops. Fair enough to say more expensive machines have bigger margins and Apple doesn't sell as many really cheap machines as other manufactures.
I'm not debating that Apple's computers show a high margin, I 'm simply observing that they don't include the OS cost in that as other PC manufacturers do - this is important. I also disagree that this margin means they could cut their prices - Apple's slim profit (smaller percentage wise than the other computer companies) reflects the large amount they spend on r&d, and on OSX. They may choose to run at a loss to build market share, but they have less "fat" to trim on their prices than others (unless they drop their R&D which I hope they never do!)
Your points 3-6 are nothing to do with hardware margins.
Hmm unfunded and mis-informing claims? Kinda like rumors?? I can't imagine there being any unfunded claims in a rumors thread.minimax said:
By the way, if you read my original post, you would see that I never claimed that the G4 was never better then the Intel processors of it's time, mearly the fact that Apple marketing left those claims up the entire time that Intel x86 was rapidly catching up and passing by IBM PPC.
modernpixel said:
me likes, me likes a lot. I may just be able to get my family to switch, if this is the case!! *goes off dancing to celebrate possible family switching*
the end of OS X, though
There would be little incentive for companies to continue to make OS X software (at least, little incentive to port to OSx86).
Even Virtual PC has the potential to cause companies to decide not to do an OSx86. (product manager: "Let me get this straight - you mean with zero expenditure for an OSx86 port Mac users can run the Windows version at almost full speed?")
And if Apple did that, why would Adobe port Photoshop to OSx86? (actually port twice - there's the OSx64 port to 64-bit Intel in the not too distant future)modernpixel said:
There would be little incentive for companies to continue to make OS X software (at least, little incentive to port to OSx86).
Even Virtual PC has the potential to cause companies to decide not to do an OSx86. (product manager: "Let me get this straight - you mean with zero expenditure for an OSx86 port Mac users can run the Windows version at almost full speed?")
GregA you haven't shown any proof to the contrary. You keep pointing out OS X as a major selling point. Well when you consider XP sells in bulk to manufacturers in the $50-70 range Apple isn't hitting those numbers but it has to be in the $100 range and the simple fact is that things such as iPod sure has HELL don't cost $400, $500, $600. I spent $599 on my iPod Photo. No way in hell is there $600 worth of parts and R&D in that thing. Annalists have pulled apart the high end low end shuffle. In both cases there isn't more then $50, $100 in parts for either device. The mini? The $500 model. There is NOT $500 worth of parts in that unless the OS costs $200. And we wont even get into the price of things like RAM upgrades. In bulk a stick of 1GB RAM sure as hell does NOT cost $100 which is exactly the price of upgrading RAM on a Mac Mini.
Oh and as for the OS. Apple easily makes up those costs with people willing to purchase the OS stand alone which the Mac faithful easily cover.
Again if you are claiming otherwise about Apple's profit margins please post proof to the contrary.
Oh and as for the OS. Apple easily makes up those costs with people willing to purchase the OS stand alone which the Mac faithful easily cover.
Again if you are claiming otherwise about Apple's profit margins please post proof to the contrary.
Research?
I don't think there's much "research" done! Everyone knows Apple is moving to intel.... There's a WWDC in January.... So, some "Analyst" (anal somthing) puts two and two together.... gets five! I'd say it's 50:50 if we see any x86 Macs in January. Fortunately, I'm not a betting sort of a guy.
dornoforpyros said:
I don't think there's much "research" done! Everyone knows Apple is moving to intel.... There's a WWDC in January.... So, some "Analyst" (anal somthing) puts two and two together.... gets five! I'd say it's 50:50 if we see any x86 Macs in January. Fortunately, I'm not a betting sort of a guy.
Exactly!
I read the original post and thought the exact same thing. This is still one of my biggest concerns with the switch to Intel.
I love OS X but MS is adding a lot of nice features to Vista as well.
If a Wine or MS VPC product can run windows apps at or near full speed in an OS X window I see this as a perfect excuse for software developers to delay or not port to OS X native.
MS may even offer VPC for free for OS X users so that they instantly increase their software market without having to develop any OS X native apps.
AidenShaw said:
I read the original post and thought the exact same thing. This is still one of my biggest concerns with the switch to Intel.
I love OS X but MS is adding a lot of nice features to Vista as well.
If a Wine or MS VPC product can run windows apps at or near full speed in an OS X window I see this as a perfect excuse for software developers to delay or not port to OS X native.
MS may even offer VPC for free for OS X users so that they instantly increase their software market without having to develop any OS X native apps.
Intel iBook at MWSF'06?
Surely the most likely event is the announcement of an Intel based iBook at MWSF'06 - didn't Steve Jobs say in his Keynote at WWDC'05 that the road map was to go for consumer products first and finish with the professional products (PowerMacs) in '07. It's well known that the big professional apps aren't ready and demoing Photoshop using Rosetta on an Intel PowerBook wouldn't impress anyone, whereas porting of the key consumer iLife apps is just about finished.
Additionally to this conjecture I just received an E-mail from Apple today detailing a £50 discount promotion on the 12" iBook which runs until 31/12/05 - these kinds of offers typically precede a new product announcement. Also of note, the UK Apple refurbished store is currently open until 04/01 and is full of iBooks and PowerBooks, again behaviour normally preceding product announcements as Apple looks to empty it's inventory channels.
Surely the most likely event is the announcement of an Intel based iBook at MWSF'06 - didn't Steve Jobs say in his Keynote at WWDC'05 that the road map was to go for consumer products first and finish with the professional products (PowerMacs) in '07. It's well known that the big professional apps aren't ready and demoing Photoshop using Rosetta on an Intel PowerBook wouldn't impress anyone, whereas porting of the key consumer iLife apps is just about finished.
Additionally to this conjecture I just received an E-mail from Apple today detailing a £50 discount promotion on the 12" iBook which runs until 31/12/05 - these kinds of offers typically precede a new product announcement. Also of note, the UK Apple refurbished store is currently open until 04/01 and is full of iBooks and PowerBooks, again behaviour normally preceding product announcements as Apple looks to empty it's inventory channels.
edinburghmac said:
No....*bangs head into keyboard* nonononono........This has to be the single greatest mistquote in the history of time.
http://news.com.com/2100-1047_3-5748045.html
I've been using this reference for a year (OK 7 months. ) now...because there has been a year's worth (OK so it feels like a year.) of people making all kinds of BS claims or simply misquotes in this case as to what Steve'o said.
All of this is on page 5 of the transcripts
modernpixel said:
you know, you would be able to do that anyway... once VPC is ported to Intel, which as far as I can see would be a matter of deleting a few thousand lines of code. then just create two user accounts for yourself, turn on fast user switching and run VPC full screen on one of them. it may not be built in but it'd work...
BlueRevolution said:
oooohhh, i like that !
...i was exactly wandering when and how will the PC emulators come out with an almost native winbooze XP solution for the MacIntel platform...
Think about the fact that VMware is a half-billion a year business built on PC emulation on the PC.strange days said:oooohhh, i like that !
...i was exactly wandering when and how will the PC emulators come out with an almost native winbooze XP solution for the MacIntel platform...
Think about the fact that MS Virtual Server and Virtual PC also are major businesses build on PC emulation on a PC.
"Virtual PC for Mac x86 Edition" is simply the current product with all the slow parts removed.
Vitual PC for the x86 architecture is an oxymoron. The line between Mac and PC has basically shrunk to OS. Despite the Mac fanboy's feelings otherwise, the line between PC and Mac has just been severly blurred.AidenShaw said:Think about the fact that VMware is a half-billion a year business built on PC emulation on the PC.
Think about the fact that MS Virtual Server and Virtual PC also are major businesses build on PC emulation on a PC.
"Virtual PC for Mac x86 Edition" is simply the current product with all the slow parts removed.
True, but the PC apps still are calling Win32/Win64 APIs and libraries - so to run the PC apps on the Mac needs a compatibility layer.Randall said:
Virtual PC for Mac OSx86 Edition or WINE are needed to provide that...
<rant>Why is it that Mac products so often rename things? Is it so that the fanbois feel that there's something unique about the Apple platform?
WINE on Linux.x86 and WINE on OSx86 are 95+% the same thing - so why the need to call the Mac version "DarWINE" ???? </rant>
If Apple allows yet another notebook line to pass by the POWERbook line, then Steve Jobs needs to be taken out back and shot. It's supposed to be a top-of-the-line machine, not some dusty old G4 wannabe. G4 was adiquate up intil sometime last year. Currently a Powerbook G4 has a tough time keeping up with some Celeron M laptops.bursty said:Two good points, I fully expect the PBs to be updated before the iBooks. At least thats what I'm hoping for.
Yes you are right about the APIs, and very right about the renaming of common applications. It is what it is though I suppose.AidenShaw said:
The good thing about OS X86 is that virtualPC will be much more of a real implementation, as opposed to an emulator. Spoofing APIs will not slow you down nearly as much as spoofing an entire architecture.
Randall said:If Apple allows yet another notebook line to pass by the POWERbook line, then Steve Jobs needs to be taken out back and shot. It's supposed to be a top-of-the-line machine, not some dusty old G4 wannabe. G4 was adiquate up intil sometime last year. Currently a Powerbook G4 has a tough time keeping up with some Celeron M laptops.
Yeah, it will be interesting to see what happens - the PowerBooks need the update more than the iBooks in some respects (as you elude to above), yet the iBooks haven't been updated as recently as the PowerBooks have.
The obvious solution to this problem - Apple will update both the iBooks and PowerBooks at MWSF!
I hope so~Shard~ said:Yeah, it will be interesting to see what happens - the PowerBooks need the update more than the iBooks in some respects (as you elude to above), yet the iBooks haven't been updated as recently as the PowerBooks have.
The obvious solution to this problem - Apple will update both the iBooks and PowerBooks at MWSF!
Seeing as how the single core Yonahs will be out in late spring, and the dual cores out in January, my gut says that Powerbooks get it first, then iBooks in June. After all, Apple needs something to distingush between the two lines. (besides the cool brushed aluminum case) 
It's quit possible we will see the Intel iBook come out initially with the Pentium 4 or M mobile processor.
While most in this forum would say that was a step back I would disagree.
Put a Pentium-4 or M along with PCI-Express, a faster FSB ( 533mhz) and a decent PCI-E mobile graphics card and it would give the iBook G4 a good run for it's money.
Six months later do the typical update to the single-core Yonah.
The Yonah Dual-Core is reserved for the Powerbook
While most in this forum would say that was a step back I would disagree.
Put a Pentium-4 or M along with PCI-Express, a faster FSB ( 533mhz) and a decent PCI-E mobile graphics card and it would give the iBook G4 a good run for it's money.
Six months later do the typical update to the single-core Yonah.
The Yonah Dual-Core is reserved for the Powerbook
That would work.~Shard~ said:Yeah, it will be interesting to see what happens - the PowerBooks need the update more than the iBooks in some respects (as you elude to above), yet the iBooks haven't been updated as recently as the PowerBooks have.
The obvious solution to this problem - Apple will update both the iBooks and PowerBooks at MWSF!