Intel iBook at MWSF (January) 2006?

[Chacala_Nayarit]

What reason do you have for believing the specs other than the processor will change? (other than the incremental improvements normally made to overdue upgrades)

Why do you assume I believe the other specs will change? I never stated that. In late 2005 those specs seem lame, yet there is no evidence Apple will change them. Hell, there is no evidence for this whimsical rumor either. 🙂

 

[jayscheuerle]

Why do you assume I believe the other specs will change? I never stated that. In late 2005 those specs seem lame, yet there is no evidence Apple will change them. Hell, there is no evidence for this whimsical rumor either. 🙂

Ah, you're right! I just assumed your enthusiasm was because other elements would change.

I'm not sure of other reasons to buy one unless the processor makes a BIG leap in speed AND you use processor heavy applications. For most people out there these days, processor speed is largely irrelevant.

 

[Chacala_Nayarit]

Ah, you're right! I just assumed your enthusiasm was because other elements would change.

I'm not sure of other reasons to buy one unless the processor makes a BIG leap in speed AND you use processor heavy applications. For most people out there these days, processor speed is largely irrelevant.

So true, processor speed is irrelevant. Ever hear those stories of people who buy a dual G5 for iTunes, email, Office, Quickbooks, and Web browsing? My parents are those people. 🙄

I took them to the Mac store last week and encouraged them to buy a Mini or iMac. They choose the Dual core 2.0GHz PM and 20" monitor. My stepdad (a computer illiterate truck driver), said the bigger the box, the better the product. 🙄 🙄 🙄 🙄 🙄 🙄 🙄

 

[generik]

yes, i work for apple and i'm just going to tell you, not think secret not macrumors just you in a forum post that they will ship on the 20th of january. 🙄

You serious?!

*Guys... let's direct His Steveness to this post so someone can get his butt toasted for breaching his NDA*🙄

 

[macrumors12345]

Even with a 30% hit in emulated apps they would likely still be faster than the current PowerBook so every app would be a bit faster and native apps would be much faster.

People throw around this 30% performance hit like it's some law of nature. It's NOT. It varies A LOT by the type of application being run.

The performance hit for something like Office may be as little as 30%. The performance hit for an app that does a lot of computation or uses a lot of floating point is going to take a much bigger hit (e.g., Photoshop!). A recent ZDNet article demonstrated that running iTunes in Rosetta imposes a 70% performance hit on iTunes encoding.

For my research, I use a statistical application - Stata. I currently run with an iBook/1.33. I'd like to get an Intel based iBook at some point. But I will probably wait until Stata goes Universal, because even if the iBook x86 has a 1.8 Ghz+ P-M, it's not likely to be competitive with the iBook G4/1.33 when running that type of app (under Rosetta).

 

[jaduffy108]

What reason do you have for believing the specs other than the processor will change? (other than the incremental improvements normally made to overdue upgrades)

>>>Reason??? I can't think of one reasonable reason the other specs *would* or even *could* stay the same. The processor change...necessitates the other specs changing...dramatically so, if we're talking dual core yonah.


peace

 

[deputy_doofy]

So true, processor speed is irrelevant. Ever hear those stories of people who buy a dual G5 for iTunes, email, Office, Quickbooks, and Web browsing? My parents are those people. 🙄

I took them to the Mac store last week and encouraged them to buy a Mini or iMac. They choose the Dual core 2.0GHz PM and 20" monitor. My stepdad (a computer illiterate truck driver), said the bigger the box, the better the product. 🙄 🙄 🙄 🙄 🙄 🙄 🙄

Ah, yes. I don't do a lot of processor intensive stuff. However, I have learned that with every computer I buy, I start to want to do something my computer can't quite handle at acceptable speeds. This is typically 6-12 months after I buy it.
So, I bought a dual-processor 2.3 G5 back in May with 2gb of RAM and it handles anything and everything I want to do (simultaneously). Lots of DVD->iPod ripping/compression. 😀

 

[jayscheuerle]

>>>Reason??? I can't think of one reasonable reason the other specs *would* or even *could* stay the same. The processor change...necessitates the other specs changing...dramatically so, if we're talking dual core yonah.


peace

I guess I'm not computer literate enough to understand why a new processor would increase screen resolution or hard-drive speed, etc..

Can't wait to see these Superbooks™

 

[Mord]

🙄 = dont take any of this seriously.... 🙄

 

[efoto]

I guess I'm not computer literate enough to understand why a new processor would increase screen resolution or hard-drive speed, etc..

Can't wait to see these Superbooks™

Perhaps not independent hardware pieces such as those you mentioned, but I do think that switching the proc should have a direct effect on the system board, fsb which would increase the speed/performance of the RAM, etc etc. The system itself should get snappier (assuming no software bumps) simply because we are getting away from the god-awfully slow 200MHz fsb we have been damned with in the *Books.

Other than those directly related pieces, I fully agree that many other hardware specs will probably remain the same (screen, HD, battery, etc).

 

[jaduffy108]

I guess I'm not computer literate enough to understand why a new processor would increase screen resolution or hard-drive speed, etc..

Can't wait to see these Superbooks™

>>>Dude...check this out...
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=27770

Well, the processor/mobo, etc won't increase screen rez or HD speed...so?😕
See below...

This link lists the specs for the Yonah chips...delivery dates, etc. Your point is valid for someone who only uses Word...and surfs the net. But even for iMovie, etc...the new chips with up to dual core(!!) 2.1ghz...667 FSB...2MB cache...will be a HUGE performance boost over any of the current laptops from Apple. If the rumor turns out to be true...and i think it will...Intel PBs will be released very soon too. Now, *I'm* waiting for Merom based PBs...with optimized apps...early 2007. Rosetta will not meet *my* needs at ALL...not even a consideration.

peace

 

[efoto]

>>>Dude...check this out...
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=27770

Well, the processor/mobo, etc won't increase screen rez or HD speed...so?😕
See below...

This link lists the specs for the Yonah chips...delivery dates, etc. Your point is valid for someone who only uses Word...and surfs the net. But even for iMovie, etc...the new chips with up to dual core(!!) 2.1ghz...667 FSB...2MB cache...will be a HUGE performance boost over any of the current laptops from Apple. If the rumor turns out to be true...and i think it will...Intel PBs will be released very soon too. Now, *I'm* waiting for Merom based PBs...with optimized apps...early 2007. Rosetta will not meet *my* needs at ALL...not even a consideration.

peace

Is that 2MB l2 per core? or combined?

Sorry, I didn't care to have a look at the link 😱

 

[toneloco2881]

Is that 2MB l2 per core? or combined?

Sorry, I didn't care to have a look at the link 😱

2mb shared cache between the cores. One core can dynamically shut itself off allowing the full 2mb access to a single core. Pretty sweet!

 

[Peter Griffin]

I didn't read through this whole thread but I think it's a bit premature for intel iBooks to drop....either that or I'm trying to delude myself since I bought my iBook not too long ago 😛 . The updates for the most recent iBooks took a lifetime and I expected an equal if not longer wait time for the intel books to arrive. guess not. Just my 2 cents

 

[dontmatter]

No one can make up their mind on what product is going to come first can they? Oh well, it's only a matter of time until we know.

GO REX.

the interesting thing is-nobody can make up their mind as to what's coming out, but everybody seems to agree on when.

And I sure like that date...

 

[efoto]

2mb shared cache between the cores. One core can dynamically shut itself off allowing the full 2mb access to a single core. Pretty sweet!

So in applications that cannot take advantage of two processors (effective by cores as well) such as most games and common apps, the primary core will have full control of 2MB l2 cache, but when there are apps that utilize two processors (effective) then each will get 1MB l2 cache?

I wonder how the general operating of the system is divied between the two cores....

 

[toneloco2881]

So in applications that cannot take advantage of two processors (effective by cores as well) such as most games and common apps, the primary core will have full control of 2MB l2 cache, but when there are apps that utilize two processors (effective) then each will get 1MB l2 cache?

I wonder how the general operating of the system is divied between the two cores....

When running an app that necessitates the advantage of two cores, the full 2mb will be "shared" allowing both cores access. I don't believe it would be divided in half. This is a much more efficient method than having a seperate cache for each processor, like the intel Pentium-D, and recently introed quad powermac.

Likely, when running on battery power, one core would shut itself off, then allowing the remaining processor to the full 2mb cache. Perhaps apple will offer a preference setting in the energy saver panel, so you can control how the cores interact, and are utilized. I'm not sure if intel has coded the processors to utilize the "dual" cores only when plugged in, and if this can be overrode with software?

 

[Deltan]

I wonder if the iBooks will get an entirely new look to match their fancy new insides? 😱

 

[Plymouthbreezer]

If this is the case, I might just get a iBook to hold me over until I get a Intel based desktop Mac sometime in 2007 (when the pro line is fully switched).

 

[Lacero]

I wonder if the iBooks will get an entirely new look to match their fancy new insides? 😱

Yes! That's what I am looking forward to as well. Can't wait to see what Apple has in store for us. The iBook plastic and the PB aluminum are already perfect in my books.

 

[pizzach]

Average 30% performance hit for applications...

30% performance hit? You're a baby, get in my belly!

 

[corywoolf]

Powerbook, iMac, iBook and MacMini are all rumoured to come out in January. I dunno what to believe 🙄 I hope for powerbook though...

iBook's and Mac Mini's updated @ MWSF '06. Powerbook in March, and iMac in April. (Just based on what makes the most sense.)

🙂

 

[aswitcher]

I wonder if the iBooks will get an entirely new look to match their fancy new insides? 😱

Black or White is a good bet...lets hope they are tough and scratch resistant...

 

[ryan]

I'm interested in what the performance of these Intel machines will be like, given the huge gains that can be made - notable FSB.

- will they be comparable to existing PPC machines
- will apple cripple the performance
- will Java will be more usable - current Java performance on PPC is pretty dire.

According to someone "in the know":

This is when I learned that the Intel builds didn't just compile and link. They actually ran, and they ra fast! I hadn't seen java run so fast on Mac OS X before, on any hardware.

and

But overall Mac OS X o Intel simply feels zippier.

 

[treblah]

People throw around this 30% performance hit like it's some law of nature. It's NOT. It varies A LOT by the type of application being run.

The performance hit for something like Office may be as little as 30%. The performance hit for an app that does a lot of computation or uses a lot of floating point is going to take a much bigger hit (e.g., Photoshop!). A recent ZDNet article demonstrated that running iTunes in Rosetta imposes a 70% performance hit on iTunes encoding.

Whoa, Whoa, Whoa!

ZDNET was running a hacked version of OS X on a Toshiba laptop with a 1.2GHz Pentium M. It is unfair to use that 'review' to guess how well Rosetta might work.