Dual-Core PowerMacs, New G4 PowerBook, and G5 Mini?

[Frobozz]

The eMac is a dying breed. Or at least the CRT eMac is.

Well, that's not entirely true. In public spaces where computers are used as terminals, such as libraries and schools, eMacs are the first choice. They are the first choice for all the same reasons they aren't the first choice for your average consumer: they're bulky and *just* fast enough, capable enough, sturdy enough, to get the job done on the lowest cost.

Obviously they suck for a home user, but the kiosks of the world are prettied by an eMac.

 

[Lord Kythe]

... except Jobs specifically stated the transition would not be complete until late 2007. That means you're, at best, 6 to 12 months optimistic with the PowerMac and PowerBook predictions.

Hey, we can always hope he was wrong.

Agreed. And one more thing: I want your computer! Quicksilver 1GHz DP with 9800?! Would be a nice replacement for my overclocked Quicksilver SP 867 with crappy stock video...

Anyone knows how I could get my hands on a Quicksilver DP (800/1GHz) processor card and heatsink??? Sorry for hijacking the thread... I'm desperate here! Quicksilvers have the best-lookin case ever.

 

[zooland]

et voila

Uhh......take a look at Apple's site. Does it appear that they've released the new PowerBooks already ?? I think they did....but they're being pretty quiet about it. I just got the newest issue of PC Connection in the mail today and on pages 14 & 15 there's an ad for the PowerBooks and it says "Brace for Impact ! New, Smarter, Faster PowerBooks are Here !"

Faster: Up to 1.67 Ghz PowerPC G4

More Memory: 512 Standard

More Room: Up to 100 GB Hard Drives

More Nimble: Scrolling Trackpad standard

Hotter: Available 8X DVD Burning

Safer: Sudden Motion Sensor standard

Ready To Run: iLife '05 preloaded


It doesn't look like there's any announcement at all on any of Apple's main pages.......you have to go straight to the PowerBook page in the Apple Store to see anything about it at all. Must not have been too excited about the updates if they're doing it that way.

Everybody go and take a look. Go to the Apple Store and click on the PowerBooks like your going to buy one and I think you'll see the new info there. Buried pretty deep on the site I'd say !!

Am I wrong ??

So whats your point?

Anything is new "cool bloody mindboggling"... till it gets updated, even if they are already outdated.

 

[SiliconAddict]

This is quickly becoming one of those things that gains credibility just because people on these and other forums keep saying it over and over again. As far as I know, there is nothing pointing to Intel based Macs coming out at MWSF '06. The only thing we have to go by is Steve's "this time next year" which you already mentioned.

I hope there are Intel based Macs in January, but it is a hope, not a fact.

Actually two things to go on....

1. "this time next year"
2. Apple doesn't release major upgrades without an event. Speedbumps yes. Major upgrades no, and I would consider an x86 Mac Mini to be a MAJOR upgrade.

 

[guez]

Why? Think how many mini's will sell then. Apple needs a platform to get the software kinks worked out. Better to do it with the mini than the Power Mac. Plus, buyers of the mini probably won't get much other software than what comes with it. You won't see mini buyers getting Adobe Suite or Final Cut Studio. You might see a few wanting to run MS Office, but they will probably settle for iWorks. Which leads me to think that Apple will announce a spreadsheet application as well.

I think it makes perfect sense. OS X will run on Intel NOW. iLife will run on Intel NOW. And I'm pretty sure iWorks will run on Intel NOW. So why not bring out a system that will run a current Intel Pentium M based processor now. We all know the Power Macs will run an Intel dual core low wattage chip that will debut sometime next year. So there's no point in waiting for the Mac Mini to use an Intel processor.

Here's the timeline as I see it.

September 2005 - Mac Mini's go Intel
January 2006 - PowerBooks/iBooks go Intel
March 2006 - ??? (Maybe PowerBooks slip)
June 2006 - iMacs go Intel
September 2006 - Power Macs go Intel

The Intel Mac Mini would have to be fast enough to overcome the Rosetta/no-Altivec hit. Remember: there are probably non-Apple consumer apps that take advantage of Altivec (Photoshop Elements, perhaps?).

But it would have to be slower than the iMac G5. Tricky.

 

[jnasato]

Yay~!

I hope Apple does release SOMETHING of interest before whenever the newer, non-PPC Macs will be released...

I hope it's all hardware that we can at least pretend to be almost excited over!

 

[SpaceMusic_Guy]

Yes, you're wrong. Those have been out since January.

That's a good thing. Then why would the PC Connection Magazine that I just got yesterday or today have that PowerBook ad that makes it look like they're new and just came out ?? That's just Stupid !!

 

[eSnow]

Something is coming in January. We don't know what but something x86 based. I would stake my life on it.

Riiiight A fool and his life are soon parted...

No sir, we won't see anything x86 in January. We will see the first x86-macs sometime in early summer, just before WWDC. And please stop moving the expected introduction day closer and closer.

 

[Frobozz]

The Intel Mac Mini would have to be fast enough to overcome the Rosetta/no-Altivec hit. Remember: there are probably non-Apple consumer apps that take advantage of Altivec (Photoshop Elements, perhaps?).

But it would have to be slower than the iMac G5. Tricky.

I agree.

The CEO of Transitive is quoted as saying apps will run 80% as fast as they would on their native binary with Rosetta. This means break even performance is 120%, or +20%. That keeps the speed the *same* in a revision. Since most updates range ~15% to ~20% in the speed department, I would agree that the Intel processor (and accompanying mobo, hd, ram, etc.) would have to be ~40% faster than the shipping PPC product to be meaningful to the end user.

*However*, if all the apps the low end user are engaged with (iLife, OS X, iWork) are native to x86, then the Intel part could be just ~20% faster. And this is why I believe the Mac Mini will be updated to Intel in the first batch in Q2 2006-- the low end user won't care about running Photoshop, Quark, FCP, Cinema 4D .... they'll just run the stuff that comes with the computer, or they can download for free.

 

[SiliconAddict]

Riiiight A fool and his life are soon parted...

No sir, we won't see anything x86 in January. We will see the first x86-macs sometime in early summer, just before WWDC. And please stop moving the expected introduction day closer and closer.

So you actually think Jobs would just release the first x86 systems, debatably the biggest transition in Apple's history, without an event like MW? Remind me how I'm being the fool again?

 

[SpaceMusic_Guy]

So whats your point?

Anything is new "cool bloody mindboggling"... till it gets updated, even if they are already outdated.

Don't have a point. The newest PC Connection Magazine that I got from the mail TODAY has ads for the PowerBook in there with "NEW" next to them. That's what made me think they released something new.......beings that I don't frequent the Apple site that much.

 

[SiliconAddict]

Well, that's not entirely true. In public spaces where computers are used as terminals, such as libraries and schools, eMacs are the first choice. They are the first choice for all the same reasons they aren't the first choice for your average consumer: they're bulky and *just* fast enough, capable enough, sturdy enough, to get the job done on the lowest cost.

Obviously they suck for a home user, but the kiosks of the world are prettied by an eMac.

Yah but how much is it costing Apple to keep stock of these CRTs for one minor line of products? Size is relative though. a 17" LCD or a 17" CRT are bothing going to be a PITA to steal. Is that a 17" LCD in your pants or ...... and brakability wise. *shrugs* You have to hit an LCD pretty damn hard to crack it. Less force then what it would take to do in a CRT but it still takes some force. *shrugs* I don't know. I was thinking out loud on that post.

 

[nagromme]

I'm skeptical of seeing many big changes during this "calm before the storm."

I do expect the PowerMac to have quite a bit of advancement in it before it goes Intel, though. That's the one I'd most expect next month.

 

[zooland]

Don't have a point. The newest PC Connection Magazine that I got from the mail TODAY has ads for the PowerBook in there with "NEW" next to them. That's what made me think they released something new.......beings that I don't frequent the Apple site that much.

Its okay astronaut. But beware its all Borgs here.

 

[dernhelm]

I'm skeptical of seeing many big changes during this "calm before the storm."

I do expect the PowerMac to have quite a bit of advancement in it before it goes Intel, though. That's the one I'd most expect next month.

Yeah, I kind of agreee here. PowerMac and XServe. I'm really suprised that the XServe seems to get lost in the shuffle a lot. It was updated sort of recently, but nothing too major. If anything goes dual-core, I would think it would be the PowerMacs first, followed by the XServe very quickly thereafter.

I expect nothing on the Powerbook front of any real significance. G4 - < 2GHz, maybe better display, thats about it.

A G5 mini just seems ridiculous. If they can do this, they could easily do a powerbook, and a G5 powerbook (even one with a 1.6GHz processor) would sell "off the shelves".

 

[DVNIEL]

I wont feel bad about my Powerbook purchase in late February unless they decide to include an HD screen. That or if they introduce a 20" Powerbook=(.

 

[TheMasin9]

neg

Low power G5s ... probably between 1.4 and 1.6 GHz. Too little power for the PowerBooks, but would be perfect for the Mac mini.

A low power g5 would be outshined by a g4 of the same ghz. a 1.67 pb can almost beat out some of the 1.8 ghz imacs from some benches ive seen.

 

[cheapnis]

Everybody talks about MacMinis being marketed to PC switchers and low end users - This is probably true but I think it's a missed opportunity on Apple's part.

Personally I can't help but be impressed that this tiny little box does some things better than my G4 gigabit ethernet with a 1.2GHz upgrade .... put in a better graphics card, Firewire 800, gigabit ethernet, a 7200rpm drive and a low end G5 - make the case 3" high instead of 2" if that's what has to happen to solve cooling problems - WTF? same foot print! ..... and I'd buy two tomorrow!

I know how incredibly productive I can be with the now ancient machine I've got - gamers needs aside such a Mac Mini would be a very very competent machine and serve the vast majority of people extremely well for a very long time to come. In fact it's exactly what I'd buy while I wait out the whole transition to Intel and I'm sure a lot of people would feel the same way.

That doesn't mean I think Apple will do it because it will be a marketing nightmare trying to explain to punters how come a Powerbook's top end G4 is faster than a low end G5! Unless of course they have something awesome in the pipeline for Powerbooks and can ride out the storm . . . here's hoping!

 

[nsjoker]

I got my Mac Mini within a few days of you (1st or 2nd week of March). I'd be happy if they put a G5 in the Mac Mini. I probably wouldn't buy one - I'm waiting for a rev. b Mactel PowerMac. Still a G5 in a Mac Mini would be good for consumers, good for that product line and good for Apple. Just because you'd rather have one than the G4 Mac Mini you willingly choose to buy because you probably thought it was worth your money doesn't mean Apple is obligated to hold that product back to stave off your jealousy. If you want a G5 Mac Mini that bad, sell your current Mini and buy one when they come out (if they come out).

Why are you upset that Apple is moving the line forward? By your logic, unless you are a firm believer in double-standards, Apple could never improve any product because someone will have always bought one somewhat recently. Although I suppose after a few decades nobody would buy the product and then it would be "okay" to update it.

g5 increase is too much man, yea.. i am a little jealous, but a g4 1.67ghz would be a more reasonable. it's a moot point anyway because they couldn't cool a g5 in the current form factor. when i used to have a PC i wouldn't care about the incremental upgrades because the hardware was already so powerful and advanced.. the only problem was windows. i just want apple to finally get to that point where users like myself don't flame at "incremental" upgrades that are leaps and bounds from where the product was six months before. i'll give apple a year and hopefully they'll hit 3 Ghz for the iLine of computers and the Mac minis.

 

[achmafooma]

Where did people get this notion of Intel-based Macs in January?

At WWDC (June 2005) didn't Steve say that there would be Intel-based Macs "this time next year"? As in, "June 2006"?

He said we would have Intel machines shipping "BY this time next year." If you say you'll have something out 'by Christmas' you don't mean ON Christmas, you mean BEFORE Christmas -- and usually WAY before Christmas (for example). Jobs said Intel machines would ship BEFORE WWDC, not AT WWDC.

So the whole 'Intel Macs at Macworld San Francisco in Jan.' is part wishful thinking, admittedly, and part a hopeful interpretation of the ambiguity of Jobs' announcement. If they did come out at MWSF, it may be surprising but it wouldn't be out of line with the initial announcement. Further, MWSF is probably the best pre-WWDC time to announce the first Intel Macs.

Otherwise, they'd would need to hold one of their 'special media events' to do it ... or wait for WWDC, which actually would make Steve Jobs a liar (he said BY [before] not AT!).

 

[bretm]

I agree.

The CEO of Transitive is quoted as saying apps will run 80% as fast as they would on their native binary with Rosetta. This means break even performance is 120%, or +20%. That keeps the speed the *same* in a revision. Since most updates range ~15% to ~20% in the speed department, I would agree that the Intel processor (and accompanying mobo, hd, ram, etc.) would have to be ~40% faster than the shipping PPC product to be meaningful to the end user.

*However*, if all the apps the low end user are engaged with (iLife, OS X, iWork) are native to x86, then the Intel part could be just ~20% faster. And this is why I believe the Mac Mini will be updated to Intel in the first batch in Q2 2006-- the low end user won't care about running Photoshop, Quark, FCP, Cinema 4D .... they'll just run the stuff that comes with the computer, or they can download for free.

Well, no, if they run at 80% speed then you'd have to increase new processors more than 20% to come out even. A 1Ghz machine running at 80% speed would be an 800mhz evuivalent. But a 1.2ghz machine running at 80% speed isn't 1ghz. 80% of 1.2ghz is 960mhz. So think more along the lines of 25% boost in processor speed to get apps running like they used to.

 

[nagromme]

Suggestion for the main MR article

Suggestion add the event date: Aug. 20-24. (And is the keynote on the 20th or the 21st?)

 

[d.perel]

I would definately buy a mac mini with an IBM low pwer processor.... that is , after the 2nd update with extra added bonuses... (Im planning ahead here)

 

[d.perel]

I agree.

The CEO of Transitive is quoted as saying apps will run 80% as fast as they would on their native binary with Rosetta. This means break even performance is 120%, or +20%. That keeps the speed the *same* in a revision. Since most updates range ~15% to ~20% in the speed department, I would agree that the Intel processor (and accompanying mobo, hd, ram, etc.) would have to be ~40% faster than the shipping PPC product to be meaningful to the end user.

*However*, if all the apps the low end user are engaged with (iLife, OS X, iWork) are native to x86, then the Intel part could be just ~20% faster. And this is why I believe the Mac Mini will be updated to Intel in the first batch in Q2 2006-- the low end user won't care about running Photoshop, Quark, FCP, Cinema 4D .... they'll just run the stuff that comes with the computer, or they can download for free.

Technically, wouldn't break-even performance be 125% or + 25% of the 80% running speed? (80*1.25=100) hehee i feel like such a geek for pointing that out, and even worse if I'm incorrect...

 

[aswitcher]

DC PMs...mmm...they go intel in what, a year, 18 months. Why stuff around going dual core when your future architecture is intel? Wouldn't that be a heap of work for such a short time? Or is this a useful thing to do now that will be transferable to dual core pentiums?

PBs...I guess. Any refresh can only help sales whilst many wait for the real future with intel.

G5 mini...they wont even stick a 64MB graphics card or a 5400 rpm drive, and people think it will now get a G5. I figure only if Apple can do it with no form factor changes and with all three, which makes me think its going to be too hot. I still wish they would build a Mac Cube, with basically the next level of specs up from the mac mini but larger to accomodate cheaper and more potent non-laptop parts so we can have up to a 250 gig HDD at 7200 rpm, oh and 2 ram slots. Sure it would be a bit bigger, although I would prefer long like two minis next to each other, but it should be even cheaper to build or the same price point with much better specs.

Like others are saying I think HD screens is a serious possibility. Maybe even a new 17 inch. Apple need to go there someday and with so much PC hardware about and now with Tiger I think they could revamp the line for landscape and portrait mode high def.

BT Might is a cert. If not before Paris.