Analysys Expect Intel Macs in January

[Randall]

Mac min dual core

This just gets better and better.....but where are the fake pics and specs from Thinksecret

Speaking of fake pics, did anybody see the fake pic of Steve Jobs at the MWSF in front of a photoshoped slide that read "Intel 12 years away" instead of "12 months away". I almost died laughing. I wish I had a link to that pic. So great.

 

[Randall]

I'm worried about the reports of high cost on the Yonahs. Apple has been working hard to get the h264 decoding happening on the graphics chips (and perhaps even the encoding too!), so I'd be happy to see a low-end Yonah MacMini with a h264 enhanced graphics chip to do the hard video stuff.

As for laptops - I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that a yonah dual-core 1.67Ghz will run PPC apps (via Rosetta) faster than a G4 single-core 1.67Ghz. (The reports on iTunes emulated speed and other general chip information seem to support that.) If true, Apple releasing Powerbooks first makes sense - from a chip cost perspective and a speed perspective. "Buy a yonah powerbook and see a slight increase in your speed, which will get even better with native apps". If the yonah's are slower (during Rosetta emulation - especially with altivec apps) then the iBook may make more sense (though the higher cost of Yonah chips will be a factor).

It's quite a challenge Apple has.

Just use one of your dual cores to encode your H.264 content with x264. Seriously I encode x264 with my Pentium III 866 MHz machine. It only takes a few weeks for a dual pass. LOL

 

[digitalbiker]

Get a Clue!

Especially after reading all of the Apple marketing bs years ago about PPC G4 kicking Intel's butt.

You don't know what you are talking about. When the PPC G4 chip came out 5+ years ago, it was an all around better chip than anything Intel had to offer. The original Ti 500 Mhz G4 PB WAS THE laptop to be had. Unique and powerful in terms of size, weight, battery life, and performance. Simply incredible.

The problem was; Motorola and eventually IBM with the G5 needed Apple's computer market share to increase dramatically so profits from the PPC chip would allow Moto/IBM to focus the resources necessary to keep the PPC chip ahead of Intel & AMD's offerings. This didn't happen. Apple's computer sales were enough for Apple but not for Moto or IBM. It has nothing to do with BS Apple marketing or with any mythical x86 supremecy over the PPC architecture.

It is the BetaMax vs VHS scenario all over again. The PPC was superior to x86 but x86 had significantly larger marketshare. Eventually marketshare won out by allowing reinvestment of profits to improve the x86 chip to the point where it overcame most of it's shortcomings.

 

[Platform]

Just use one of your dual cores to encode your H.264 content with x264. Seriously I encode x264 with my Pentium III 866 MHz machine. It only takes a few weeks for a dual pass. LOL

Realtime 1080i/p

 

[runninmac]

As Jobs himself spelled out - the product pipeline is to introduce the Intels into consumer products first and then ease into pro products.

OH NO U DID N'T

No where did he EVER say that. Bring up the quote and I will eat my shoe and take pictures of it to send to you

 

[GregA]

There are hundreds of hardware drivers for windows, a few of witch will probably be compatible with some of the Mac x86 hardware right off the bat.

The EFI stuff says that the old BIOS standards can be included for backwards compatibility & support. Do you think Apple will make a laptop that is NOT tied to Intel legacy at all, or offers compatibility?

From AMI's website (a BIOS manufacturer)

At this time, no shipping 32-bit operating system supports EFI. Support is being developed for Linux. Microsoft has announced support for EFI in “Longhorn”, their next generation 32-bit operating system.

The EFI Framework defines the Compatibility Support Module (CSM), which provides the runtime interfaces necessary for compatibility with existing PC operating systems. AMI's implementation of EFI & the CSM on IA32 platforms is designed to facilitate the transition from BIOS runtime services. This allows users and system integrators to support both firmware interfaces.
http://www.ami.com/support/doc/EFI-FAQ.pdf
(written in 2nd half of 2004)

So Windows XP will only run on a new EFI system if it includes the CSM (compatibility support module). If there's no CSM, I don't think it'd be a simple hack to get Windows running - if it was MS would simply support it now. Of course, perhaps Apple will want compatibility (for running multiple OSes), or will do some totally different BIOS trick.

 

[AndrewMT]

Well we all know they are going to release something, we just don't know what that is.

I am hoping for the PowerBooks (probably like most here), but I am expecting the Mac mini.

Although there is one bit of evidence that Apple has some highend laptops coming because ATI is apparently holding off announcing the X1800M (it's highend mobile graphics chip) until certain partners announce laptops with the chip in.

I hope you're right. Putting a X1800M (minumum of 256mb) in a Powerbook would be absolutely amazing for me. I would love to be able to dual boot into windows to play my games, abd finally be able to boot my PC forever.

 

[DWKlink]

I saw that article and I think its bollocks. I refuse to belive that a Pentium M 1.8 ghz costs $240 to the manufacturer when the machines retail for $850 at Dell. Dell's margins are high--maybe not Apple high but it's high. Apple being the darling, high-profile customer that it is, Intel will offer similar discounts, even if Dell moves double, triple the units.

Totally agreed. That guy's numbers didn't seem to jive... but you cannot deny the fact that these chips have to cost more money than the G4s that are in there right now. I think you can pick up a G4 for a pack of gum these days... maybe 2 packs...

 

[Stridder44]

 

[minimax]

OH NO U DID N'T

No where did he EVER say that. Bring up the quote and I will eat my shoe and take pictures of it to send to you

Yes, but it was the original source with the scoop about the intel transition that said the lower end (consumer) would transition first. Not only is it a reliable source but it's plain logic as well.

 

[SiliconAddict]

 

[Peace]

No matter what the intitial cost of the Yonah CPU will be Intel is going to cut Apple a LOT of slack pricewise just for the "prestige" of having Apple Computer in it's camp..And Apple will take advantage of that..Does anybody remember how giddy the Intel CEO was at Apple's announcement?

 

[Lacero]

Speaking of fake pics, did anybody see the fake pic of Steve Jobs at the MWSF in front of a photoshoped slide that read "Intel 12 years away" instead of "12 months away". I almost died laughing. I wish I had a link to that pic. So great.

It's from this post waaay back in April.

Here's to the Crazy Ones ​

 

[susannahyork]

Does anyone think that apple will release a new powerbook in jan. just to say that there is a new intel powerbook, for marketing reasons? I hope they aren't that silly, but it seems like if they made the most out of an intel ibook it would be better than the current powerbooks, which would look bad. It would be best if they could port all lines at once, so that the lines stay seperate, but who wants to wait until next fall for the new intel chips? This seems like a possible problem to me, I can't wait to see what apple does....

 

[Peace]

Does anyone think that apple will release a new powerbook in jan. just to say that there is a new intel powerbook, for marketing reasons? I hope they aren't that silly, but it seems like if they made the most out of an intel ibook it would be better than the current powerbooks, which would look bad. It would be best if they could port all lines at once, so that the lines stay seperate, but who wants to wait until next fall for the new intel chips? This seems like a possible problem to me, I can't wait to see what apple does....

That is precisely why Apple will be introducing the new Intel line of laptops
Starting with the low-end iBook going up to the high end Powerbook.
With a Mac Mini Media Center thrown in..

I see 3 Intel laptops at MacSuperWorldSanFrancisco:

Low-end iBook 13.3in
Medium ***book 15in.
High end Powerbook 17in.

 

[Randall]

You don't know what you are talking about. When the PPC G4 chip came out 5+ years ago, it was an all around better chip than anything Intel had to offer. The original Ti 500 Mhz G4 PB WAS THE laptop to be had. Unique and powerful in terms of size, weight, battery life, and performance. Simply incredible.

The problem was; Motorola and eventually IBM with the G5 needed Apple's computer market share to increase dramatically so profits from the PPC chip would allow Moto/IBM to focus the resources necessary to keep the PPC chip ahead of Intel & AMD's offerings. This didn't happen. Apple's computer sales were enough for Apple but not for Moto or IBM. It has nothing to do with BS Apple marketing or with any mythical x86 supremecy over the PPC architecture.

It is the BetaMax vs VHS scenario all over again. The PPC was superior to x86 but x86 had significantly larger marketshare. Eventually marketshare won out by allowing reinvestment of profits to improve the x86 chip to the point where it overcame most of it's shortcomings.

blah blah blah. You talk a lot but you're not saying anything. I didn't claim that the G4 wasn't better then the Intel chips of the time, but that was years ago!! The G4 is a dinosaur now and Intel is about to show the G4 who pwns it. As for BetaMax and VHS, it doesn't apply AT ALL. Maybe it applys to Blu-ray vs HD-DVD, but not to this situation at all. This has nothing to do with Intel catching up, it has everything to do with IBM having their heads up their a$$es.

 

[Randall]

It's from this post waaay back in April.

Here's to the Crazy Ones ​

lmao that's the one! thanks Lacero.

 

[rolandf]

They will have to work really hard

Perhaps at the beginning with all the hype around the iPod creti and pleti is curious to see a Mac. So Apple will certainly profit from the change.

But using the same chip as the other mass marketers do, will be of no advantage, if the OS is not ways superior or favourable for other reasons. This is something one experiences with SGI, which is more and more fading away into oblivion.

Further, Apple might see itself in the well-known position, that the AMD chip will be superior performance wise, or performance per Watt wise or both and they stick again to the "wrong chip". But this time this is more dangerous, because one has the real comparison.

Also, after reading the specs concerning the new dual core machines for Computer Graphics applications it seemed to me, that the G5 is great, but Apple exactly missed out on the software, i.e., on the drivers for the graphic cards.

That is not a good sign for the pro market. Why should a pro buy an x86 machine from Apple, under such conditions.

Also, probably IBM will (has) to put out in a second iteration mature Cell
type processors that really mean a jump ahead.

All in all, in the long run, it does not make sense for Apple to give up the
PowerPC side, at least not for the pro environment. If not, they will end up being a consumer product company.

 

[mhouse]

Right-O

Thats my point exactly. So if all apple does, hypothetically of course, is replace just the processor, the notebooks are ALREADY costing them more to make. Not even mentioning the possibility of faster GRFX card, faster RAM, bigger HD...

I think people need to temper their expectations a bit. I don't think its possible for Apple to release a CHEAPER notebook based around Yonah that also has the latest GRFX, memory and all the other goodies people are speculating without significantly raising the price of the machine.

You guys are exactly right on this line of thought. Anyone thinking Apple is going to compete on price is kidding themselves. They've never done it and I doubt they ever will. Why should they? Every PC manufacturer in the world (including even Dell lately) is struggling with keeping the business profitable.

What I think is more likely (and practical) is that Apple will keep the same price points (as always) and just pump out some really hot, thin, sexy products with new features. As you guys pointed out, they will still take a hit on margins with the pricier processors but...

A.) they have the fattest margins in the business so they could easily afford a 10-15% hit

B.) they sell 8,000,000,000 iPods every time you blink so they could easily afford a 10-15% hit

 

[GregA]

A.) they have the fattest margins in the business so they could easily afford a 10-15% hit

Apple doesn't have fat margins at all. It's just when some people say "30%" they're assuming Apple pays $0 for the OS - which is not true at all.

If you look at profit vs revenue on the mac hardware (including OS development) then last year barely broke even. It's better this year with the increased Mac sales - since the OS is a once-off cost, and every EXTRA Mac sold really does cost Apple $0 for OSX.

 

[kingtj]

Anything's possible, but....

If you want my own guess, I'd say I imagine Apple will start out with a relatively low-power Intel CPU and put it in a refreshed iBook line. It will have a primary benefit of lower power consumption rather than CPU power that would make it perform noticeably better than current Powerbooks. That way, it won't kill off the existing Powerbook market before they're ready to update those - but it gives Apple a good starting point to say they're selling machines that have transitioned over to Intel.

The more costly dual-core Intel CPUs will probably go into new Powerbooks a little later on in the year.

Does anyone think that apple will release a new powerbook in jan. just to say that there is a new intel powerbook, for marketing reasons? I hope they aren't that silly, but it seems like if they made the most out of an intel ibook it would be better than the current powerbooks, which would look bad. It would be best if they could port all lines at once, so that the lines stay seperate, but who wants to wait until next fall for the new intel chips? This seems like a possible problem to me, I can't wait to see what apple does....

 

[mhouse]

Apple doesn't have fat margins at all. It's just when some people say "30%" they're assuming Apple pays $0 for the OS - which is not true at all.

If you look at profit vs revenue on the mac hardware (including OS development) then last year barely broke even. It's better this year with the increased Mac sales - since the OS is a once-off cost, and every EXTRA Mac sold really does cost Apple $0 for OSX.

I understand what you are saying but I don't think you are correct. Every business analyst in the world says that Apple has the biggest margins in the business. So while we may argue about the definition of 'fat', its clear that Apple has better margins relative to the rest of the PC industry even if those margins are smaller than they seem.

In other words, even assuming OS development eats half of their hardware margins (doubtful), they still have better margins than anyone else.

 

[nataku]

hmm... it would seem that a lot of news revolving the expected appearance of intel macs in january keep popping up all over the place. if you ask me... i strongly believe that they really would. the only question is... which will get intel processors first? the current G4 line up? time shall tell.

 

[MarcelV]

That is evident from what Jobs said about them developing an x86 version of OS X side by side the PPC version. At the very least they were keeping their options open, which is just smart.

That they keep their options open is not surprising. Jobs' direction with Next (NextStep) was pretty clear. No surprise here. Why would he take a different direction at Apple?

Rosetta is not as impressive as Apple would have you think. PearPC writes sort of a reverse Rosetta if you will, allowing x86 to emulate PPC.

First, I am not sure you can compare Rosetta and PearPC. I think that's wishful thinking on PearPC's part. As far as my (limited) experience goes with both, Rosetta is running PPC more efficient on Intel than PearPC runs x86 code on PPC. And if the PPC code on Intel runs at say around 70%, with the speedgains that the Intel platform will bring, this will be offset and most consumer programs will run at comparable speed.

 

[susannahyork]

You don't know what you are talking about. When the PPC G4 chip came out 5+ years ago, it was an all around better chip than anything Intel had to offer. The original Ti 500 Mhz G4 PB WAS THE laptop to be had. Unique and powerful in terms of size, weight, battery life, and performance. Simply incredible.


I am still using the 500 Mhz g4 pb to this day. Am I behind? Guess it's time to upgrade....