Analysys Expect Intel Macs in January

[bursty]

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.

I'm kind of pissed about the current Pro line. The Powerbook is obviously way short of where it should be and while the new Powermacs are impressive, they STILL dont come standard with AE and BT.

 

[BlueRevolution]

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.

really? I was expecting the PBs to be given single cores to start with, then upgraded when the dual cores come out and the single cores moved to the iBooks. if what you say is true, that is certainly more evidence to support the PB as a platform to roll out the Intels on.

it does raise an interesting question though: how much of Yonah's game plan is being based on Apple's integration of the chip? it's possible that Apple said OK PowerBooks need them first, so give us chips for that first. then later come the single cores so we can put out a consumer version without looking cheap. or, on the other hand, it's also possible that Intel just wants to get a dual core Yonah on the market before the single because a single core just isn't fast enough to make everyone go ooh and aah. excited though Intel may be to work with Apple, let's not forget that Apple is a small fraction of Intel's market.

I'm kind of pissed about the current Pro line. The Powerbook is obviously way short of where it should be and while the new Powermacs are impressive, they STILL dont come standard with AE and BT.

at least you don't need to have white antennas sticking out of your computer anymore to use them like mine does.

Power Macs are aimed primarily at pro app users who would be more likely to want to use gigabit ethernet than Airport. it would be interesting to see what percentage of Apple's online sales of each line have AE/BT selected as BTO upgrades. (well, before they started being standard on some lines anyway.) I'd imagine that there's a lower percentage for the PMs, hence the lack of upgrade.

 

[aswitcher]

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

Thats an interesting theory. Why risk a new chip when they can be pumping out tried and tested chips now.

 

[BlueRevolution]

Thats an interesting theory. Why risk a new chip when they can be pumping out tried and tested chips now.

well, no Mac user will buy a Mac with a Pentium chip in it...

seriously though, Apple needed time to get OS X x86 ready for market, and to give their developers a chance to port to the new architecture. since they're waiting anyway, they may as well wait on the latest greatest from Intel to make people take notice. Intel just has to cough gently at the processor rollout and mention that Apple has a line of laptops with the processor shipping today and it's all worth it. besides, it seems more Apple's style to go for the latest greatest. and then to stick with it until it's long dead, insisting that it can still beat anything the competition has to offer

 

[ASP272]

Analysts are as inaccurate as many of macrumors competitors! But it's always nice to get one more source for a good rumor.

 

[Randall]

well, no Mac user will buy a Mac with a Pentium chip in it...

seriously though, Apple needed time to get OS X x86 ready for market, and to give their developers a chance to port to the new architecture. since they're waiting anyway, they may as well wait on the latest greatest from Intel to make people take notice. Intel just has to cough gently at the processor rollout and mention that Apple has a line of laptops with the processor shipping today and it's all worth it. besides, it seems more Apple's style to go for the latest greatest. and then to stick with it until it's long dead, insisting that it can still beat anything the competition has to offer

LOL then they simply won't be buying a new Mac indefinately. Yonah = Pentium M. The sad thing is that even Intel's previous line of Pentium M's will give the G4 a run for it's money. The G4 is the caveman of Processors. Unveiled in January 2001. 5 years ago!!!

 

[Stonecoldcleric]

well, no Mac user will buy a Mac with a Pentium chip in it...

I couldn't agree more - I am enduring with my 1ghz 12" pb until I see what appears in jan. if it is a ibook or a pb with a pentium - no way! I'll stick with this dude a little longer until the pb performace nears the powermac performance. Also, if the only jump in performance is the extremely slight jump to the Intel M processors, again, it is not worth it - I have used some my friend's Inspiron 9000 series Dell (with the ATI 9700/128 in it - the top 'entertainment' notebook, not the xps, gaming notebook) - and it is not much better than my pb, now a dinosaur. :/

disclaimer - i am not a gamer, and would imagine that my buddy's machine would out perform mine more in a gamining situation - i am talking jumpbacks and other moving backgrounds for presentations and video production.

 

[Randall]

I couldn't agree more - I am enduring with my 1ghz 12" pb until I see what appears in jan. if it is a ibook or a pb with a pentium - no way! I'll stick with this dude a little longer until the pb performace nears the powermac performance.

People please. Yonah = Pentium M. Are you saying that you'll never buy a new Mac ever again because it's not PPC based? They've brainwashed you into hating Pentium somehow. Intel has come a loooong way. They no longer try to push for the higher clock rates as being better, they have taken a lesson from AMD, and Intel is currently focusing their strategy on getting more instructions done per clock cycle, as well as multiple cores, and by the end of 2006, 64-bits! To not buy because of Pentium is your choice, but is seems like the alternative to keep with the G4 caveman chip is just assenine.

 

[AidenShaw]

and by the end of 2006, 64-bits!

Don't you mean

and by the end of 2006, 64-bits in a dual-core laptop chip!​

All of the current desktop and server Intel chips are already 64-bit - only the laptop chips (where you're unlikely to need more than 4 GiB of RAM) are 32-bit.

 

[Platform]

People please. Yonah = Pentium M. Are you saying that you'll never buy a new Mac ever again because it's not PPC based? They've brainwashed you into hating Pentium somehow. Intel has come a loooong way. They no longer try to push for the higher clock rates as being better, they have taken a lesson from AMD, and Intel is currently focusing their strategy on getting more instructions done per clock cycle, as well as multiple cores, and by the end of 2006, 64-bits! To not buy because of Pentium is your choice, but is seems like the alternative to keep with the G4 caveman chip is just assenine.

No one want a Pentium today...not even PC users...AMD

The P4 is too hot too slow and old

 

[Randall]

No one want a Pentium today...not even PC users...AMD

The P4 is too hot too slow and old

Pentium 4 is completely different then Pentium M. Let's not confuse the 2 of them. Also, did you read the AnandTech: Intel Yonah Performance Preview? It looks very promising, and puts the Yonah dual core Pentium M head to head with some of the latest AMD 64-bit desktop processors and Yonah does give AMD a run for it's money. I told you Intel is changing for the better. Gone are the days were it was all about clock speed, marketing that more GHz is better.

 

[Randall]

Don't you mean

and by the end of 2006, 64-bits in a dual-core laptop chip!​

Yes of course it was implied. Thanks for clearing that up

 

[strange days]

Yes you are right about the APIs, and very right about the renaming of common applications. It is what it is though I suppose.

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.

mmmh... i was wondering if someone with a higher technical background could give me an opinion on viruses and winbooze emulation on a Mac..

I mean, do you think we'll have to run anti-virus / spyware software in the PC emulator if we're going to use the internet from the PC side of the machine ?

...maybe some bastard hacker will even find a way to hack a Mac through malware run from a winbooze emulator...

...or am i just being paranoid and none of the above applies ?

 

[Randall]

mmmh... i was wondering if someone with a higher technical background could give me an opinion on viruses and winbooze emulation on a Mac..

I mean, do you think we'll have to run anti-virus / spyware software in the PC emulator if we're going to use the internet from the PC side of the machine ?

...maybe some bastard hacker will even find a way to hack a Mac through malware run from a winbooze emulator...

...or am i just being paranoid and none of the above applies ?

If you run windows (emulated or otherwise) the risk for obtaining a virus is the same. Although it will only effect your windows applications. (or whichever applications the virus was written for). I suggest running AV software on any OS, especially Windows.

On a mac, there is not much of a need for AV software (no native OS X viruses yet). There are still MS word/excel macros that can effect your work just the same on any platform that runs these applications, and just because a virus is dorment on your system, doesn't mean you should ignore it and pass it along to your Windows burddies un-intensionally or otherwise. I recommend using ClamAV on OS X. Free, fast, and good. (I don't run it constantly in the background like I do with McAfee Enterprise on my Windows box) I run it stand-alone maybe once a month to clean house. I have found windows specific viruses on my mac before with this.

 

[Platform]

Pentium 4 is completely different then Pentium M. Let's not confuse the 2 of them. Also, did you read the AnandTech: Intel Yonah Performance Preview? It looks very promising, and puts the Yonah dual core Pentium M head to head with some of the latest AMD 64-bit desktop processors and Yonah does give AMD a run for it's money. I told you Intel is changing for the better. Gone are the days were it was all about clock speed, marketing that more GHz is better.

I know..I'm very impressed with the Yonah..want one

 

[BlueRevolution]

If you run windows (emulated or otherwise) the risk for obtaining a virus is the same. Although it will only effect your windows applications. (or whichever applications the virus was written for). I suggest running AV software on any OS, especially Windows.

I don't, because all I run on Windows is... uh... IE (for testing site designs only, I swear). oh, and ARSENAL Extended Power, because it's old and primitive enough to run emulated. so if I get a virus mucking with one of my emulated PCs, I just delete the PC and reinstall. easy-peasy. personally I can't imagine relying on VPC for much more. if you're using it that much, build yourself a cheap one and use a KVM switch. saves you the indignity of seeing the "Welcome to Windblows XX" screen on a Mac. though, it also means you miss the wonderful moments like this:

I know..I'm very impressed with the Yohan..want one

Yohan, huh?

 

[Randall]

I don't, because all I run on Windows is... uh... IE (for testing site designs only, I swear). oh, and ARSENAL Extended Power, because it's old and primitive enough to run emulated. so if I get a virus mucking with one of my emulated PCs, I just delete the PC and reinstall. easy-peasy. personally I can't imagine relying on VPC for much more. if you're using it that much, build yourself a cheap one and use a KVM switch. saves you the indignity of seeing the "Welcome to Windblows XX" screen on a Mac. though, it also means you miss the wonderful moments like this:





Yohan, huh?

You can't possibly be using an emulated version of Windows XP Pro can you? I have not seen the infamous BSOD since Windows 98 third edition a.k.a. Windows Millenium Edition. Anyway about what you said, sure you could just delete the PC and reinstall, and that's great. When I was talking about getting viruses for windows, I ment that it doesn't matter if you're running VirtualPC or the real deal, you can still get one (only affecting Windows of course). While I don't see any reason to run a virus scanner on OS X (since no viruses exist for it as of yet) I do feel that an occasional scan with ClamAV or some sort of sweep for known threats should be in order every so often. While there are no viruses that effect the Mac, they can still lie dorment on your system, and could carry over to a windows system via email or network sharing, where it could cause real damage. Maybe it's just because I also use a PC, but I don't want to be a "carrier" for anything like that.

I don't justify using system resources on a virus scanner for OS X fulltime (running constantly in the background) but I do do a full system scan about once a month. I have had my Powerbook for 2 years, and I've found 2 Win32 based viruses on my system. It does happen, but very rarely. Anyway just thought I would clarify what I was talking about.

P.S. I'm sure that Platform was talking about Yonah, and not Yohan.

 

[~Shard~]

P.S. I'm sure that Platform was talking about Yonah, and not Yohan.

Either that, or he knows something we don't...

 

[AidenShaw]

Saves you the indignity of seeing the "Welcome to Windblows XX" screen on a Mac. though, it also means you miss the wonderful moments like this:

Windows 98 blue screen - very appropriate for two weeks before 2006... Maybe I should post some images of OS 8 crashing and claim that OSX sux?

And, BTW, please spare yourself the indignity of using sophomoric, cutesy mis-names of Windows. "Windblows", "winbooze" and all the other misnames make you look stupid, not Windows.

Dignity is not a weakness....

 

[BlueRevolution]

You can't possibly be using an emulated version of Windows XP Pro can you? I have not seen the infamous BSOD since Windows 98 third edition a.k.a. Windows Millenium Edition.

if you look at the screenshot you will see that is indeed what I'm running. I have 98 and 2000 installed in VPC, since XP doesn't like being emulated. Or run with less than 1 GB of RAM on a real PC either in my experience.

Windows 98 blue screen - very appropriate for two weeks before 2006... Maybe I should post some images of OS 8 crashing and claim that OSX sux?

did I ever say anything to that effect? or did I not write the same post everyone read? Windows has come a long way since those days, and I don't think anyone would be in a forum like this without such an understanding. however, the classic BSOD is simply symbolic of issues with the operating system that I'm sure we can all agree still exist. or are you using a Mac because you prefer to spend large sums of money on computers?

I won't bother to respond to the second part of your post. I'm sure you weren't expecting me to.

 

[strange days]

Windows 98 blue screen - very appropriate for two weeks before 2006... Maybe I should post some images of OS 8 crashing and claim that OSX sux?

And, BTW, please spare yourself the indignity of using sophomoric, cutesy mis-names of Windows. "Windblows", "winbooze" and all the other misnames make you look stupid, not Windows.

Dignity is not a weakness....

hehe, i've been using Winpuke XP for a couple of years now, and i just had a BSOD a month ago; which is probably a good sign if i am to believe reports from Winshit 98 users...

...Aiden don't be mad, renaming Windows is just a little joke, right ?

 

[Randall]

if you look at the screenshot you will see that is indeed what I'm running. I have 98 and 2000 installed in VPC, since XP doesn't like being emulated. Or run with less than 1 GB of RAM on a real PC either in my experience.

This is not true, the minimum requirement for XP to run is 128 MB RAM, and the recommended amount is 256 MB RAM. I have 512 MB (SDRAM not the DDR2 stuff) and my PC runs beautifully. You shouldn't make fun of an OS because you don't know how to use it. Especially if you need to use it like you do.

hehe, i've been using Winpuke XP for a couple of years now, and i just had a BSOD a month ago; which is probably a good sign if i am to believe reports from Winshit 98 users...

...Aiden don't be mad, renaming Windows is just a little joke, right ?

As much as I admire your childish naming of Windows, The BSOD doesn't happen on XP unless you have absolutely no idea what you are doing. The NT kernel is just as stable as the XNU core of OS X. I would like to take this opportunity to post a screenshot of an OS X kernel panic, to put you in your place.

 

[AidenShaw]

if you look at the screenshot you will see that is indeed what I'm running. I have 98 and 2000 installed in VPC, since XP doesn't like being emulated. Or run with less than 1 GB of RAM on a real PC either in my experience.

I've run and do run XP in VMware (ESX/GSX/Wrkstn), Virtual Server, and Virtual PC (for Windows).

I've never had an issue with "XP doesn't like being emulated".

Is it true that XP won't run in Microsoft's own Virtual PC for Mac? Does everyone have this problem?

 

[ewinemiller]

I've run and do run XP in VMware (ESX/GSX/Wrkstn), Virtual Server, and Virtual PC (for Windows).

I've never had an issue with "XP doesn't like being emulated".

Is it true that XP won't run in Microsoft's own Virtual PC for Mac? Does everyone have this problem?

Nope, running it just fine on Virtual PC for Mac.

And for those that think XP needs a gig to run nice...

I use Virtual PC hosting XP on my Mac so I can run the source safe client (man I just wish someone would write one for the Mac), so I'm not doing a lot, but I turned off a couple of unused services and the eye candy, it's currently booted up with only 60.2 meg of used RAM. I only allocated 128 meg total to the virtual machine and it's never been a problem.

Sometimes when I load IE to test a web page...I go past 70 meg, egads!!

 

[Platform]

Either that, or he knows something we don't...

I'm afraid not...it was just late