Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Intel iBook at MWSF (January) 2006?
- Thread starter Daveway
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
cubist said:
As an aside, they were available from Apple for a very short time, and from Newer for a few years...I used my Blackbird (540grayscale) with a NewerTech NUpowr 500/183c upgrade (183 MHz 603e w/128K level 2 cache) until I replaced it with a Pismo. It worked well and IMHO there just wasn't any portable worth buying, and with better design, between the two. More info here: http://lowendmac.com/pb/540.shtml
VIREBEL661 said:
It's kinda funny to see this kind of wish, now that we're moving to Intel...
I thought every PC user (and most Mac users in this forum) out there criticized Macs for not having the best GFX...now reality sets in...MOST PC laptops have, indeed, IIG...therefore, MOST PC laptops have worse GFX than even older iBook and PB offers...
Doesn't really matter if its money out the door or not, its still money that Apple have to spend, I'm guessing the cost of them developing their own OS is similar to that of buying one off Microsoft (if not more expensive). By developing its own OS Apple has to spend millions that Dell doesn't, that expenditure has to be recouped somehow, the most obvious way is the premium they place on the price of Apple hardware.wilburpan said:
I think this is perfectly fine also, clearly a Mac with no extra software does a hell of a lot more than a new Dell PC with Windows XP installed only.
Pentium VS PPC
Can someone explain to me what options the iBook has as far as Intel chips. I mean, I've seen people say that any varient of the even the lowest Intel chips will give the PB a run for its money, I just wanna know what's so special about the Intel chips. I think that Intel can deliver power in large quantities (after all, they ARE Intel). Are there significant differences architecture wise? And if so, where do these advantages lie? For example, is the L2 cache bigger? Bus speed? I know the G4 lacks in those areas, but for a CISC chip, it's gotta have significant differences to make it compete with the Altivec in the G4, right? Or is the Altivec in the G4 that outdated? 😕
Can someone explain to me what options the iBook has as far as Intel chips. I mean, I've seen people say that any varient of the even the lowest Intel chips will give the PB a run for its money, I just wanna know what's so special about the Intel chips. I think that Intel can deliver power in large quantities (after all, they ARE Intel). Are there significant differences architecture wise? And if so, where do these advantages lie? For example, is the L2 cache bigger? Bus speed? I know the G4 lacks in those areas, but for a CISC chip, it's gotta have significant differences to make it compete with the Altivec in the G4, right? Or is the Altivec in the G4 that outdated? 😕
There's a big difference between "Pro-Apps" here. One category is Apple Pro-Apps which are probably developed in XCode, and apart from endian issues (which can be huge, don't underestimate them in any software projects), should be easy to port.ccrandall77 said:
Then you have the 3rd party pro-apps: Photoshop being the biggest. Is it developed in XCode? Probably not, most likely Codewarrior? Adobe will either have to port it to XCode or develop their own system to make Universal binary. Porting Photoshop to a new IDE won't be trivial.
Personally I highly doubt any of the Pro-Apps will be ready in January, except maybe for Beta-testing. We'll see.
Mord
macrumors G4
weezer160 said:
odd that it's me saying it but:
modern x86 cpu's are all but RISC cpu's they basically are a RISC cpu with a CISC translation layer, the pentium M had a short pipeline an excellent branch predictor a huge L2 cache on top of a decently fast bus they basically fixed all the flaws of the pentium 3 and stapped a P4 bus to it and it worked rather well, yonah and on will use a much much more ground up design, the big change is that intel is no longer clock speed mad and now they can spend that massive R&D budget effectively rather than on deepening pipelines and pumping clock speed.
Yebot
macrumors 6502
ccrandall77 said:
I don't know that pro-apps won't be ready by January. I only know what the rumors are saying. (This is a rumors site.)
Adobe has come out and said that Photoshop for Intel is taking a long time. Does that mean they won't be ready for january? might.
But if the rumors are true about the iBook coming first -- I'm telling you that it makes sense. Again, you raise the point the Apple would have to be "marketing the Powerbooks over the iBooks". I remind you, Powerbooks are NOT in competition with iBooks. Apple sells iBooks to soccer moms, 7th graders, grandparents, and iPod-freaks. They sell Powerbooks to design pros, musicians and video-gods. The people that need pro-apps to maintain thier livelyhoods are going to be the most reluctant to adopt unproven techonolgy.
Or course, judging from your signature, you seem to buy every Apple product in the lineup which makes you a minority customer. (Most people get by with one machine.)
Your admission that you've owned two Powerbooks and never run a pro-app and that all your friends own Powerbooks but don't run pro-apps tells me that you have too much money than you know what to do with. You should have gone with an iBook. Oh wait ... you have one of those too. Nevermind.
PRICE POINTS:
My guesses
Low end iBook will come in at around $699-750.
Mid range iBook will come in at around $850-999.
Top range iBook will come in at around $1,050-1,199.
My guesses
Low end iBook will come in at around $699-750.
Mid range iBook will come in at around $850-999.
Top range iBook will come in at around $1,050-1,199.
You missed out a huge market for the iBook: College Students. I see loads of iBooks around my Campus, and my wife who is a student also has a iBook for her work. In fact I'd consider the "student" demographic to be much larger than any of the ones you listed above.
However as a Student's main usage for an iBook will be web, email and Office (they sell students Office 2004 for $50 at my University and its use is required for almost everything), which don't require too much grunt, and will probably work fine even under Rosetta.
and in other news...
...it may rain or snow today, with a chance of sun.
Looks, it's a Mac Mini, no it's an iMac, no it's an iBook...or is it a PowerBook.
Is it all or none of these?
Based on the rumor rumblings, my prediction is this:
-- as other have said up thread, the rumor mill is covering it's bases.
or
-- if I am reading the tea-leaves correctly, January's Mac World is shaping up to be an all Intel rollout of the consumer line, with PowerBooks following quickly.
It's the PowerBook that is the tricky part. We all expect some sort of speed bump out of this switch--otherwise why are we putting up with yet another migration--thus, we expect the iBook to be faster after the switch, but how fast. Well, if the intelBook is faster then a PPC PowerBook, is Apple really willing to release the intelBook first? Does this mean the intelBook will be no faster than a current model PowerBook? Things that make you go...hmmmm...
...it may rain or snow today, with a chance of sun.
Looks, it's a Mac Mini, no it's an iMac, no it's an iBook...or is it a PowerBook.
Is it all or none of these?
Based on the rumor rumblings, my prediction is this:
-- as other have said up thread, the rumor mill is covering it's bases.
or
-- if I am reading the tea-leaves correctly, January's Mac World is shaping up to be an all Intel rollout of the consumer line, with PowerBooks following quickly.
It's the PowerBook that is the tricky part. We all expect some sort of speed bump out of this switch--otherwise why are we putting up with yet another migration--thus, we expect the iBook to be faster after the switch, but how fast. Well, if the intelBook is faster then a PPC PowerBook, is Apple really willing to release the intelBook first? Does this mean the intelBook will be no faster than a current model PowerBook? Things that make you go...hmmmm...
Photoshop and Altivec
This is all conjecture, but seems logical to me:
The Apple ProApps are probably already running on Intel processors, so as far as Powerbooks going Intel, that's a non-issue.
As for Photoshop: Photoshop (and all of the Adobe apps, for that matter) rely on a plug-in architecture to add in new features. The raw code base doesn't change that much from version to version. Altivec support was enabled in Photoshop 5.5 via a plug-in and probably still exists as a plug-in.
I have Photoshop 7 on my PC at work, and there is an MMXCore.8BX plug-in. I can't confirm this, but surely the PC version of Photoshop CS2 has an SSE3 plug-in.
So... how hard would it be for Adobe to release the Mac version of the SSE3 plug-in? (That's not rhetorical; I'd like an answer.) The Altivec plugins in Photoshop are replaced with SSE3 plugins (which essentially already exist). The rest of Photoshop is handled by Rosetta, which yields a 30% hit to performance. The Intel processors in this new theoretical Powerbook already kick the crap out of a G4, so even with Rosetta running, Photoshop users are still getting a faster system.
Thus, Powerbooks are safe to go Intel. Sure, there are plenty of other apps other than Photoshop, but if Photoshop is the largest concern, then it seems there's a way to easily address it.
Am I completely high, or doesn't that make sense?
This is all conjecture, but seems logical to me:
The Apple ProApps are probably already running on Intel processors, so as far as Powerbooks going Intel, that's a non-issue.
As for Photoshop: Photoshop (and all of the Adobe apps, for that matter) rely on a plug-in architecture to add in new features. The raw code base doesn't change that much from version to version. Altivec support was enabled in Photoshop 5.5 via a plug-in and probably still exists as a plug-in.
I have Photoshop 7 on my PC at work, and there is an MMXCore.8BX plug-in. I can't confirm this, but surely the PC version of Photoshop CS2 has an SSE3 plug-in.
So... how hard would it be for Adobe to release the Mac version of the SSE3 plug-in? (That's not rhetorical; I'd like an answer.) The Altivec plugins in Photoshop are replaced with SSE3 plugins (which essentially already exist). The rest of Photoshop is handled by Rosetta, which yields a 30% hit to performance. The Intel processors in this new theoretical Powerbook already kick the crap out of a G4, so even with Rosetta running, Photoshop users are still getting a faster system.
Thus, Powerbooks are safe to go Intel. Sure, there are plenty of other apps other than Photoshop, but if Photoshop is the largest concern, then it seems there's a way to easily address it.
Am I completely high, or doesn't that make sense?
Anawrahta said:
Errr... the software will be recompiled to run on the new OSX, which is based on fat binaries (or something like that) meaning your old software will still run on your ppc (duh) and the new software will be created in such a way that it runs on either processor. There is no worry. As far as the computer user is concerned this is really no different than a switch from G4 to G5. The software manufacturers will have to make the adjustments. But just like software that is now developed to use a G5, it still runs on G4.
Powerbooks will use the newer chips that aren't out yet. Ditto with towers. The ibooks will most likely use the current intel chips, along the lines of G4 speed. Not as fast as the G5s. I mean, you don't get the best intel chip in a sub $1000 notebook, even on windows.
xejn said:
nuckinfutz said:
Why do you assume the iBook would get a Pentium-M 1.5GHz??? If it did, then I say they are holding back the upgrade on the iBook from what it should be.
Personally I say SO WHAT if Pro-apps aren't ready. 1.) I doubt the performance difference between a Mactel + Rosetta won't be much different from any G4 they put in the Powerbook, 2.) As others have already said, the Pro-apps run like crap on the current Powerbooks already... will a 7448 at 1.7GHz make THAT big of a difference? I doubt it since it the application would need to be able to take advantage of dual cores (if that's what the 7448 offers). And I doubt the bus speeds would pick up much either with a 7448, 3.) You don't know if the pro apps are ready or not anyway.
mdavey
macrumors 6502a
xejn said:
[strikethrough]
Beautifully put. There is one other complication with the PowerBook range - it is currently on a 64bit processor but both the single-core and dual-core processors that Intel have announced for January are 32bit. So PowerBook will either (a) have to go back to 32bit for a bit, or (b) there will be a period where iBook will be on faster Intel and PowerBook will be on slower G4, or (c) Apple will bump the PowerBook to G5 (perhaps the 7448 that others have discussed), or (d) Apple will announce both iBooks and Powerbooks a MWSF but with shipping several weeks later, or perhaps (e) Apple will only announce an Intel Mac mini (and iHome?) at MWSF after all. Hmmmm indeed!
[/strikethrough]
Edited - stupid mistake, PowerBook is G4 and 32bit.
Some_Big_Spoon
macrumors 6502a
So, if they leave the PB's as is and do this, expect ibooks to be crippled as all get out so as not to infringe on the oh-so-craptacular "power"books.
It's going to be a weird year or two.
It's going to be a weird year or two.
Yebot said:
Well, why I buy the products I do and how I choose to spend my money are neither anyone's business nor relevant to this conversation. There are plenty of reasons one would get a Powerbook over an iBook:
1.) Quality --- read the forums, iBooks are often problematic... my personal experience validates that assumption as well
2.) Size --- the 12" PB is lighter and thinner than the iBook
3.) Superdrive option was not available for the 12" iBook
4.) Better GPU in the Powerbook
5.) Mini-DVI out in the Powerbook, mini-VGA in the iBook
6.) Mirroring and Dual-displays in the Powerbook
7.) Powerbook simply looks nicer than the iBook, IMO
8.) And then throw in a slightly faster CPU, bus, and RAM
By your same argument, why wouldn't I just get a piece of crap Dell for $499 and run Outlook, IE, and M$ Office.
While I understand that some people buy a laptop to run pro-apps and to use as a desktop replacement, seriously there are going to be more people that want a Powerbook for the reasons I give rather than as a machine to run Adobe or FCP. And realistically, for most people, the PowerMac is a more appropriate machine to run those applications on anyway.
nagromme
macrumors G5
And how many times has Apple been BEHIND schedule on a new model for reasons other than IBM and Motorola not delivering chips? They're not in this picture.realityisterror said:
wilburpan said:
True--but at the same time. Apple DOES have to pay for the DEVELOPMENT and SUPPORT of their own OS, and Apple doesn't use Dell's cheap components, and Apple doesn't benefit from Dell's economies of scale.
Re integrated Intel graphics: yes, it's worse than what most Macs have had for a long time. But I would not object to it on the low-end: MANY people do not NEED anything more. So if Apple wants to offer them a cheaper model, that's fine with me. I won't buy it, but where's the harm in the option? It would be a fine choice for some people.
I actually hope Apple DOES offer new models with lower specs (other than CPU speed) than anything they now sell. Offer an iBook and Mac Mini with minimal HD, RAM, graphics, etc.--but PRICE it accordingly. The great OS X experience would still be there, at a new lower entry price that still meets the needs of low-end users very well.
mdavey said:
I see your reasoning, but IIRC the G4 is also a 32-bit processor. The G5 is the 64-bit processor.
I have similar concerns about the desktops possibly going from 64-bit to 32-bit, however, most people won't notice and won't care. I, however, use PowerMacs to run numerical models and it could affect me. I'd hate to go back to buying a Solaris or SGI machine and lose out on XGrid... even if the desktops eventually go back to a 64-bit chip from Intel.