Intel iBook at MWSF (January) 2006?

[QCassidy352]

I'm calling BS.

First, if the ibooks go intel first, they'll probably mop the floor with the powerbooks in pure speed. Would apple really allow that?

Second, I just think that intel at MWSF as a general proposition is not realistic. When has apple *ever* delivered an anticipated product so far ahead of schedule?

It's a nice thought, but I highly doubt this.

 

[JFreak]

I'm a designer... need to know these things...

If you are a professional, then you must know that it always takes longer for pro systems to make big paradigm shifts -- first they make consumer systems available for making "a real world test system" for pro system developers, and whenever the pro systems are ready, then they are released. That's how it has always been and I cannot see a reason why it would be different this time.

Take a look at OS9 vs. OSX transition, for example. There were some apps during the 10.0--10.1 period, and major apps begun to be optimised during 10.2, but it was only the 10.3 era when pro systems abandoned the classic. The reason it took so much longer than consumer systems is that if you're a pro, you need to have a 100% reliable and stable workhorse available at all times, and you most likely do not have the time to test new systems having the probability of many non-billable hours.

Hardware is different. Professionals always like to have enough horsepower, which usually means latest and greatest. You can order a bunch of new Quads in a heartbeat if you need them, but for us professionals this PPC-->X86 shift is not about hardware at all -- it's mostly software transition.

Anyway, I suggest you buy a Quad for your profession and then wait two or three years before buying a new Intel-based system. That's the safe way for a pro designer.

 

[JFreak]

IFirst, if the ibooks go intel first, they'll probably mop the floor with the powerbooks in pure speed. Would apple really allow that?

First of all, performance is not all about the cpu. Powerbooks have mighty good internals and the real world performance of a Powerbook that has similar cpu than ibook is anormously better than the ibook. There's a 25-30% performance hit for ibook due to internal design (compared to similar powerbook), and Rosetta puts in another 25-30% performance hit -- so there's just no way for this rumoured ibook to be faster than current Powerbook.

This rumoured ibook is meant to be a real world testbed for software developers 😉 It's not going to show all its power until the software transition is finished.

 

[JFreak]

Porting to x86 isn't difficult because Apple already has a huge base of software purely in objective-C which usually need a simple recompile or a few tweaks here and there. Their Unix core team has plenty of experience with x86 (Darwin already has an Intel version). Mac OS X was designed to be generally multiplatform compatible. NeXT has gone from 68k to x86 to PowerPC and now back to x86 with Mac OS X.

Yes, for Apple that is. There are however so many bigger and smaller software developers that also need to get their porting done and optimised, and that WILL take time. Consumers might get instant gratification, but us professionals are more demanding and prefer the porting and optimising done perfectly rather than as fast as possible.

 

[toneloco2881]

I'm calling BS.

First, if the ibooks go intel first, they'll probably mop the floor with the powerbooks in pure speed. Would apple really allow that?

Second, I just think that intel at MWSF as a general proposition is not realistic. When has apple *ever* delivered an anticipated product so far ahead of schedule?

It's a nice thought, but I highly doubt this.

I agree with your first point. If iBooks go intel at MWSF then powerbooks will go at the same time. A yonah in any variant would completely destroy the powerbook g4. The powerbook is not really a "pro" machine right now in any sense besides it's name.

As for your second point, when did Apple ever publicly state their timeframe for "delivering" intel macs? They just said anytime before WWDC 2006. I always assumed it would be sooner than later. In a sense, Apple has to force the issue to get the laggard developers on task. Intel powerbook sells will be crazy besides some people postulating about the lack of software. The speed hit taken for running in emulation, would probably be countered by the extreme difference in performance, comparative to today's g4. The "dual core" yonah is going to be a BEAST!

 

[generik]

So apple insider claims Intel PBs, Thinksecret claims Intel iBooks... which will it be?

Either case it is really time to sell my PB 😀

 

[Peace]

the first ones will be slow anyway because of emulation. I dont see a power user switching to intel for a while now soley because of software/performance issues.

Since this is an entry-level laptop the average consumer probably wouldn't even notice emulation ( if there is any ) due to the major apps like safari,the iLife suite and iTunes being universal binaries.They won't use Rosetta.

As for power users switching that won't happen until Powerbooks and Powermacs are introduced later..

If the price drops and it's got the typical Apple inovations the Intel iBook could be a big hit in the laptop market.

 

[generik]

Second, I just think that intel at MWSF as a general proposition is not realistic. When has apple *ever* delivered an anticipated product so far ahead of schedule?

Just to teach another MR member about the intricacies of english 🙂

Steve mentioned MacIntels will be in the market by June, not in June. What he meant to say is come June 2006, the world will already be filled with tens of thousands of new Mac users running Windows on their new computers 😀

 

[iEdd]

I agree with the comments about PB being screwed if iBooks get another update before them. They barely win in speed as it is. 256MB of built in ram in a 12" PB... iBooks may go to 1GB built in. They might drop the 12" PB.
Whatever happens, I hope they do something with the graphics cards.

 

[generik]

First of all, performance is not all about the cpu. Powerbooks have mighty good internals and the real world performance of a Powerbook that has similar cpu than ibook is anormously better than the ibook. There's a 25-30% performance hit for ibook due to internal design (compared to similar powerbook), and Rosetta puts in another 25-30% performance hit -- so there's just no way for this rumoured ibook to be faster than current Powerbook.

What do you mean by "... due to internal design..."? Even if Apple puts in the current Pentium Ms into the iBook, at say 1.5Ghz (pretty much the slowest PM these days) it will be very compariable to the G4 1.67.

I own one of these, there is no pixie dust, no myth of the mhz myth, no nothing.. that 166mhz bus and 25W power consumption is really not cutting it in this day and age.

I don't care if George Bush uses the same PB as me to command the entire US army and edit videos of his grandkids at the same time, it is seriously a legacy processor that is starting to show its age...

How so can Apple slow down the iBook due to internal design changes?

Disregarding anything that is not natively compiled, for the most part at least the OS will be quicker, Safari will be quicker, mail will be quicker, iApplications will be quicker, Java applications will run quicker.

I don't mind a 30% penalty on a processor that is already probably as fast if not faster for the odd app that is not natively compiled for Intel.

Short of Apple deliberately crippling the CPU on those iBooks, it is seriously going to give the current PBs a good wooping.

I really urge anyone who is having second thoughts about your recent purchase to dump it on eBay asap, the bottom is going to crash out of PPC pricing.

 

[maverick808]

I have to agree with QCassidy352 and toneloco2881 in that I just can't see Intel iBooks before PowerBooks. As they said, an Intel iBook would make a mockery of a PPC PowerBook as it would be significantly faster. 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.

Furthermore, currently the iBook isn't great but it's still a decent machine that is certainly capable of fulfilling the average consumers needs. The PowerBook, on the other hand, is an awful performer for a supposedly high-end laptop.

I think the following would keep the PowerBook in front of the iBook and are all more likely than Apple making the iBook better than their high-end model...

1) Move PowerBooks to Intel now and keep iBooks as they are.
2) Move PowerBooks to Intel and make the iBooks 1.67 or 1.5GHz PPC until they switch too.
3) Move both PowerBooks and iBooks to Intel.

With all these rumours about 4 different Intel moves now it is possible that we could get most of Apple's lineup moving to Intel in Jan. Completely unlikely and I don't believe it will happen but... if it did then it would be the best MWSF ever.

 

[generik]

The Yonah is available in dual core and single core variants, could Apple use the dual for the PB and use the single for the iB?

 

[JoeG4]

Lower prices? How do they plan to do that without sacrificing quality?

Oh I get it now..

INTRODUCING THE ALL NEW 1.8GHz Apple iBook!

Powered by the blistering fast Intel® Celeron-M™ processor with Intel Extreme Integrated Graphics!!!

It's gonna stink like rat poo... But that's Apple now, not Apple a year ago -- the "We don't think video matters", firewire-pushing, RIAA-fingering company has turned into a "budget solution" company that "believes in variable pricing for songs" and "sees a place for video in the market"...

It's like the borg has taken over.

 

[50548]

Maybe its just me but doesn't it seem like the rumor sites are "covering all bases" like they did earlier this year?

Actually they have no clue, as usual...one says "iBooks", another says "PBs"...currently they are as reliable as MOSR or LoopRumors...

 

[generik]

INTRODUCING THE ALL NEW 1.8GHz Apple iBook!

Don't beat on the Centrino-M, it is surprisingly quick for its money actually.. and that's partly why Intel discontinued it. It was really cannibalising their PM sales.

 

[QCassidy352]

Just to teach another MR member about the intricacies of english 🙂

Steve mentioned MacIntels will be in the market by June, not in June. What he meant to say is come June 2006, the world will already be filled with tens of thousands of new Mac users running Windows on their new computers 😀

🙄 I guess you're unfamiliar with the intricacies of Apple. When they say "by" a certain date, what that means is that maybe, maybe they'll announce the product on that date and have it ship a month later. More likely what it means is, "We're working on it. There's no way in hell you'll see it by this date, but you can dream. Sucker."

I'm aware that a technical reading of what Steve said could have put the intel release anywhere from one moment after he finished speaking through WWDC 2006. But the intricacies of the english language mean nothing here; you have to talk in apple-speak.

"We'll hit 3 Ghz by next summer," Steve Jobs, WWDC 2004.

First of all, performance is not all about the cpu. Powerbooks have mighty good internals and the real world performance of a Powerbook that has similar cpu than ibook is anormously better than the ibook. There's a 25-30% performance hit for ibook due to internal design (compared to similar powerbook), and Rosetta puts in another 25-30% performance hit -- so there's just no way for this rumoured ibook to be faster than current Powerbook.

Of course it's not all the CPU, but what exactly are you referring to? The GPU? RPM of the hard drive? RAM speed? "Internals" can mean anything. Don't kid yourself - the CPU makes a huge difference, and the pentium M crushes the G4.

Hey, don't get me wrong, I'd like to see this too, but it ain't happening. You heard it here first.

 

[generik]

If you'd allow me to make a prediction...

Freescale 7448 PBs next Tuesday! 😀

 

[Staffroomer]

If this is true I'm going to be particularly happy with my wife who hasn't let me buy my iBook yet this year.. 🙂

 

[Lacero]

You shouldn't be surprised. x86 hardware has been engineered so many times over again and again that it isn't hard anymore to come up with generic x86 hardware.

Yeah. This time, Steve Jobs under-promised and over-delivered on the date, unlike his famous 3 Ghz promise.

 

[the.snitch]

Yeah. This time, Steve Jobs under-promised and over-delivered on the date, unlike his famous 3 Ghz promise.

Is it just me, or does that look like "12 years" not "12 months"? Is this a deliberate parody, or an F-up?

 

[generik]

Yeah. This time, Steve Jobs under-promised and over-delivered on the date, unlike his famous 3 Ghz promise.

That picture is absolutely hilarious! 😀

 

[mdavey]

MWSF announcements - my predictions

Intel Mac mini solo 1.6GHz - from $399 - shipping today
Intel Home Theater solo 1.6GHz CPU + HT GPU - from $599 - shipping today

12" Intel iBook solo 1.6GHz - $499 - shipping within 12 weeks
13" Widescreen Intel iBook solo 1.8GHz - $699 - shipping within 12 weeks
14" Intel iBook solo 1.8GHz - $999 - shipping within 12 weeks
15" widescreen Intel PowerBook dual 1.8GHz - shipping within 12 weeks
17" widescreen Intel PowerBook dual 1.8GHz - shipping within 12 weeks
17" widescreen Intel PowerBook dual 2.1GHz - shipping within 12 weeks

 

[johnnyjibbs]

Great, this makes my girlfriend's new Christmas laptop decision more complicated. I'm trying to persuade her to go Mac (i.e. iBook) but now it may be worth waiting in case of this update. She needs it then though so I can only hope it will come out by Macword SF '06.

Here's hoping.

BTW, I'm sure Apple will find a way to cripple the new iBook so that it won't be faster than the current PowerBooks 😉 Or maybe we'll see little 12" Al also bumping ahead of it's bigger brothers for once in its life in addition to iBooks?! (After all, who would get the 12" PB if the iBook was faster and better?)

 

[animefan_1]

Wow! A 200 dollar price drop? Maybe this Intel thing will be worth it after all. 😉

They also said the iPod mini was supposed to cost ~$99.

We all know how right they were with regards to that. 🙄

 

[nagromme]

I don't see Intel PowerBooks being far--if at all--behind iBooks.

A next-generation Yonah (single core) iBook is almost certain to outrun a PowerBook G4 in many (not all) key respects. The PB has to change too.

And Apple does NOT have to wait on the PowerBook--PowerBooks have a more mainstream/consumer market that PowerMacs have, and would sell well even while we await key apps like Photoshop (which will run in the mean time, just at a penalty).

What Apple could do is keep a G4 model or two on hand for pros that need a non-Intel app now. Keeping G4s for those folks doesn't mean Apple can't offer Intel models to everyone else.

I'm thinking of how Apple kept the G4 towers around--but little-publicized--even after the G5 towers were out. And of how Apple kept OS 9-bootable towers available even after the newest towers were OS X-only. And of how Apple kept selling iMac G3s LONG after the iMac G4 came out.

It's practically a habit with them--and would solve a lot of dilemmas next year.

PS, Intel Macs earlier than June is NOT moving anything sooner. Apple never promised to wait for June. They said Intel Macs would be out BY June at the latest. And they said that so far in advance even THEY probably didn't have each month mapped out in stone. Intel Macs in January would be on the early side, but doesn't represent any change in what Apple said in the beginning.