Intel iBook (MacBook) Arriving in May? and 17'' MacBook Pro?

[bill4588]

yeessssssss.....not a nerd. .....oh wait, im on these forums at 10:15 in the morning...

 

[daschim]

size 13"3 screen ibooks

What are the measurements of a 13"3 widescreen display actually? Why only launching ibooks with only one screensize? I can imagine that 13"3 laptops are ideal for people that need to travel a lot but not as a replacement for desktop pc(15" would be better for this). I really want a ibook but I think the 13"3 displays are to small. MacBookPro have 15" screens...but they are to expensive for me.

 

[skullsplitter]

MBP in NZ

I received my MBP about 3 weeks ago in New Zealand. About 2 days after ram from crucial arrived so good timing. I have no need for firewire, but this speed is blazing. Why do pro machines need FW800? You dont need to be a pro to use it, but you do need to be a pro to milk the engine to its full inside a MBP. Hope the iBook is renamed, and has iSight, I use mine a lot. I really like my screen and dont notice it being larger on top, probly cos I am actually working on my puter, which means looking at the screen. Backlit keyboard dont dont bother me, I type dvorak.

 

[DKZ]

1. 32-bit Intel chips have supported 64 GiB of RAM for quite a few years, you don't need 64-bit to put more that 4 GiB of RAM on a system
2. The big "more RAM" advantage of 64-bit is that a single program can easily use more than 4 GiB if it needs the space
3. For PowerPC, 64-bit is no faster - and is most likely slightly slower - than 32-bit
4. For Intel x64 chips, however, 64-bits is often quite a bit faster. 20% faster is an average speedup for 64-bit

When a PowerPC is shifted to 64-bit mode, little changes except that the existing pointer registers are 64-bit instead of 32-bit. So no speedup. The potential slowdown is due to the increased amount of memory needed for pointers. It takes twice the memory bandwidth to move pointers to and from the main RAM, and only half as many pointers can fit into cache. (Due to alignment issues, there might also be additional wasted space in data structures - wasted space that's transferred from RAM to cache and back.)

When an x86 chip shifts to x64 mode, some major architectural changes occur. Most important, instead of having the 8 32-bit general purpose register of x86 - x64 has 16 64-bit registers. Since several registers are used for pre-defined purposes, this means that x64 mode has nearly 3 times as many available registers. Compilers can take advantage of this to reduce the traffic to cache and main memory.

x64 mode also has twice as many 128-bit SSE registers, so that SIMD and floating point can be much faster. (The SSE vector unit has a "vector length = 1" mode which is the recommended way of doing scalar floating point on x86/x64.)

Here's a bit from Bare Feats - if you look around you'll see many other benchmarks showing improved performance for 64-bit applications on x64.



Note the lines "PD 2.8 64/64", "PD 2.8 64/32", "PD 2.8 32/32". Those are three tests on the same 2.8 GHz Pentium D dual-core. "32/32" is 32-bit OS/32-bit app. "64/32" is 64-bit OS/32-bit app. "64/64" is 64-bit OS/64-bit app.

As you can see, the 64-bit app is 23% faster than the 32-bit app.

Yes and you'll find many more that shows no difference at all, and even a bit that shows a loss. But still this performance gain has nothing to do with the amount of bits, it has something to do with the AMD64 structure. As you yourself points out.

 

[Digitalclips]

IBM PC sold to China and Cloning

I just occurred to me why IBM dumped their PC manufacturing...

They had the inside info a long while back that Steve was dumping their chips and realized Mac with Intel was a win win for Apple and lose lose for PC makers.

Side note: Cloning using SuperDuper and similar utilities is not going to back up that BootCamp PC area (although it will any Parallel type VM). The thought of trying to use PC software makes my blood run cold, so I hope some bright dude out there comes up with some way of cloning a PC partition on a Mac from the Mac OS side.

 

[calyxman]

Good news, but I'll be holding off until the next revision or two for the MBP. In the meantime, I'll continue putting mileage on my iBook G3.

 

[mikemodena]

I agree, they've still got the Imac so I dont see why they couldn't keep iBook.

I think since there's still the iMac it will be the iMac, the iBook, the MacBook Pro, and the Mac Pro... just losing the Power prefix. That's just my guess, and it's not based on anything really, except the fact that the iMac is still the iMac.

 

[AidenShaw]

Yes and you'll find many more that shows no difference at all, and even a bit that shows a loss. But still this performance gain has nothing to do with the amount of bits, it has something to do with the AMD64 structure. As you yourself points out.

My initial claim, which you called wrong, was "The 64-bit product will be faster (like 20%) than the 32-bit".

This claim is true - a product compiled for 64-bit will usually be significantly faster than a product compiled for 32-bit (I've seen quite a few benchmarks, in a range of a few percent faster to over 50% faster - 20% is a "typical" improvement).

The fact that it's due to the changes in the x64 ISA rather than the longer pointers doesn't negate the fact that 64-bit apps will usually be significantly faster than 32-bit apps on the same system. That's all I said, and I stand by it.

I also stand by the opinion that in the long term Apple (and Apple buyers) will regret the "9 months of Yonah". If Apple had waited for Merom, and had embraced true 64-bit for OSx64 (that is, there simply would be no 32-bit s/w whatsoever for OSX on Intel) - things would be simpler and cheaper for developers and users. As it is, there will be another big software transition - from the current 32-bit Intel to a 64-bit Intel, and "fat binaries" will have to become "even fatter binaries" to hold both 32-bit and 64-bit Intel code in addition to 32-bit PPC code.

 

[JJTiger1]

MacIntel laptop

I'm betting that the iBook MacIntels will introduce Mac OS 10.5 Leopard.

 

[bilbo--baggins]

I think since there's still the iMac it will be the iMac, the iBook, the MacBook Pro, and the Mac Pro... just losing the Power prefix. That's just my guess, and it's not based on anything really, except the fact that the iMac is still the iMac.

Except Steve Jobs said that Mac's will have Mac in the name, so I don't think the name iBook will continue unfortunately. Mac Pro I agree with though.

 

[Stella]

Hopefully, Apple will take the opportunity, along with the name change, from iBook -> MacBook ( which IMO, is a good change ), to make the MacBook less of a girlie looking machine.

I doubt it though!

 

[VIREBEL661]

I Personally still think they should bring out a 12"/13.3" MacBook Pro. Because some people mite need a portable laptop and a good video card like a X1600 or a X1300 and a GMA950 wont cut it.

Totally agree... I need an ultraportable that has the most powerful graphics available - definitely not something integrated. Maybe there aren't that many people who spend a lot of time in the field and need an ultraportable - but are using high end graphics and movie apps - connecting the ultraportable to a large monitor at the workplace or home office. For me, it's great to know I have that horsepower in there - so I can show examples at a diner lets say - and take it home without transferring any files to a desktop....

It's a market that I think is somewhat under-represented, and will be the bleeding edge of notebooks in the future I think (not the 17" - just my opinion)... Here's to hoping they have some customizable solutions for those of us who want to jump on the Intel bandwagon. C'mon Apple - how about a 13.3" widescreen with a Core Duo and 128MB (256? - That would be SWEET) of dedicated vram!

 

[Stella]

IBM had been losing money in its PC division for years....

I just occurred to me why IBM dumped their PC manufacturing...

They had the inside info a long while back that Steve was dumping their chips and realized Mac with Intel was a win win for Apple and lose lose for PC makers.

 

[jarodsix]

For what you describe (photoshop and design work -- I assume illustrator, indesign, quark, etc) then you are not doing anything that would benefit from a dedicated graphics card?

Current generation integrated graphics chips do accelerated 2D graphics very well and light to moderate 3D acceleration very well. Photoshop, inDesign, Illustrator, Quark, etc are use 2D graphics from the perspective of the graphics chip.

I'll tell you what would benefit from dedicated graphics card.... QUARTZ 2D EXTREME !!!

 

[beatle888]

the rumor claims that the ibook will be rebranded to "macbook".


this is what tells me that this isn't true. the iMac and the iBook are a consumer line. the only reason why apple changed to macbook pro was because they weren't using the PowerPC anymore and the Powerbook had the word "Power" in it. the iBook needs no such adjustment and since they didnt change the iMac i doubt they will change the iBook so....rumor looses credibility.

 

[BOOMBA]

I'm going with Appleinsider.
Think Secret has been WAY off lately.

 

[Stella]

the rumor claims that the ibook will be rebranded to "macbook".


this is what tells me that this isn't true. the iMac and the iBook are a consumer line. the only reason why apple changed to macbook pro was because they weren't using the PowerPC anymore and the Powerbook had the word "Power" in it. the iBook needs no such adjustment and since they didnt change the iMac i doubt they will change the iBook so....rumor looses credibility.

PowerBooks have been called "PowerBooks" for longer than PPC processors have been in them.

Having re-branded PowerBooks to MacBook Pro, it makes perfect sense for the iBooks to follow suit - MacBook.

So, the line up - MacBook and MacBook Pro.

 

[bketchum]

What are the measurements of a 13"3 widescreen display actually? Why only launching ibooks with only one screensize? I can imagine that 13"3 laptops are ideal for people that need to travel a lot but not as a replacement for desktop pc(15" would be better for this). I really want a ibook but I think the 13"3 displays are to small. MacBookPro have 15" screens...but they are to expensive for me.

Sorry if this has been said already...

If I understanding the rumor correctly, it sounds like Apple is going to replace three of their laptops (12.1-inch iBook, 14.1-inch iBook, and 12.1-inch PowerBook) with one 13.3-inch MacBook. Although this possible move reduces product choice, it does increase Apple's buying power. Instead of buying parts for three different laptops, they're buying parts for one machine. One of the rumors mentioned that the MacBook will only be available in one Core Duo configuration. Perhaps only having to buy one processor in volume from Intel will create greater cost savings. This would allow Apple to price their MacBooks more competively. A better priced MacBook, along with being able to boot Windows, creates a very compelling buying choice for school boards.

Has anyone held or used a Dell Latitude x1? I wonder if Apple will go this direction for its MacBook, but with a 13.1-inch, wide aspect panel, and have it come in around 2.5 lbs for easy portability in a school bag.

 

[TheMasin9]

y graduation

this is great news. i hope they're released before my graduation (cuz im gettin one as my gift). I wonder how much they'll cost?

i dont understand you people who buy computers for christmas or graduation before you go to college, why not wait til the weeks before u go to school so you have the latest and greatest. Sure its nice to have the "gift" rigth there, but id sure as heck rather have the cash and save it for later and get a better computer.

 

[Cabbit]

iMacBook

 

[rhsgolfer33]

i dont understand you people who buy computers for christmas or graduation before you go to college, why not wait til the weeks before u go to school so you have the latest and greatest. Sure its nice to have the "gift" rigth there, but id sure as heck rather have the cash and save it for later and get a better computer.

Why? Well maybe because(if hes like me)hes running a 4 year old compaq desktop and wants to replace it with something that can actually run newer software and games. Its also not too likely that Apple, with in 2-3 months(even PC makers lines go longer than that without getting updates) of releasing a computer, is going to update it so much that its out of date. Personally, I'm going to buy my laptop for college at the time Apple does their back to school, student union, whatever its called sale.

 

[mashinhead]

According to Apple, there are currently 1,418 universal apps. So, quite far from "no" universal apps being available, as you stated.

As I said, the majority of the apps I use are already universal. I am in the market for a small laptop for presentations (using Keynote, which IS universal). Instead of listing what is universal, you are probably better off going through your apps and listing what isn't universal. There are only 4-5 apps I use that are not universal. And they all run under Rosetta. Sure, it may be 20% slower than a 1.33 iBook. But don't forget about overall system responsiveness, or the fact that the universal apps are going to be about 100% faster on a 1.67 core duo than a 1.33 G4.

I don't really think thats a fair statement. I mean really has anyone had a problem using Pixadex, or Comic Life Deluxe, or omni graffle on their G4? Or Keynote for that matter. Over 90% of those 1400 titles are small non power intensive programs. Why don't you look at the 4 or 5 titles that aren't universal. then how much time do you spend on them vs the other smaller programs. If you're a gamer then by all means go for it. But I bet that people really want more power for intense programs they actually have problems with on a G4 like, Adobe Cs, macromedia, maya. Are these universal? And you keep going back to the point that it will be faster once they are. Which i've never refuted. The point is, they aren't so, it isn't faster, and it won't be anytime soon.

 

[daysleeper]

Hopefully, Apple will take the opportunity, along with the name change, from iBook -> MacBook ( which IMO, is a good change ), to make the MacBook less of a girlie looking machine.

I doubt it though!

yeah, they are kind of "girlie", tho I'm not sure why. All of the women at my grad school have them, and are always polishing the scratches out in the middle of class.

Should have been powerbook and powerbook pro, IMO. MacPad, maybe, although that's kind of a ripoff of thinkpad.

 

[Multimedia]

9 Months Of 32-bit Yonah Lead To Universal BloatWare

My initial claim, which you called wrong, was "The 64-bit product will be faster (like 20%) than the 32-bit".

This claim is true - a product compiled for 64-bit will usually be significantly faster than a product compiled for 32-bit (I've seen quite a few benchmarks, in a range of a few percent faster to over 50% faster - 20% is a "typical" improvement).

The fact that it's due to the changes in the x64 ISA rather than the longer pointers doesn't negate the fact that 64-bit apps will usually be significantly faster than 32-bit apps on the same system. That's all I said, and I stand by it.

I also stand by the opinion that in the long term Apple (and Apple buyers) will regret the "9 months of Yonah". If Apple had waited for Merom, and had embraced true 64-bit for OSx64 (that is, there simply would be no 32-bit s/w whatsoever for OSX on Intel) - things would be simpler and cheaper for developers and users. As it is, there will be another big software transition - from the current 32-bit Intel to a 64-bit Intel, and "fat binaries" will have to become "even fatter binaries" to hold both 32-bit and 64-bit Intel code in addition to 32-bit PPC code.

There you go again Alden Shaw. Blowing my mind again - as usual. I knew there way some reason to wait for 64-bit Merom this Fall. Now you tell me this time is all a big mistake. Bummer.

I imagine that Apple couldn't wait any longer to get their Mobiles out of their tragicaly slow corner. Too bad it means we'll have to put up with even bigger Universal app file sizes in future - especially on precious Mobile HDs. May I please have TWO 160 Seagates inside the 17" Merom Apple?

What about the idea of having installers make DIFFERENT INSTALATIONS of a lean only-for-that-processor type of install so that the apps wind up each being smaller than a Universal app will be? This is what I thought would be the case when I first heard the idea of Universal Biinaries. In fact I was quite surprised to find out that everything is rolled into the same bloated application. Isn't that a logical alternate scenario for PPC vs Intel 32 bit vs 64 bit installations? Or is that harder to implement?

Glad I got the Quad when I could for only $500 more than I sold my Dual 2.5. Right now, for example, almost all 4 cores are fully occupied doing nothing more than burning a couple of disk images and exporting an HDTV recording from EyeTV2. Man we are so short on real power it is not even that funny. Thanks again for your amazing analysis.

 

[mixel]

I also stand by the opinion that in the long term Apple (and Apple buyers) will regret the "9 months of Yonah". If Apple had waited for Merom, and had embraced true 64-bit for OSx64 (that is, there simply would be no 32-bit s/w whatsoever for OSX on Intel) - things would be simpler and cheaper for developers and users. As it is, there will be another big software transition - from the current 32-bit Intel to a 64-bit Intel, and "fat binaries" will have to become "even fatter binaries" to hold both 32-bit and 64-bit Intel code in addition to 32-bit PPC code.

Apple would've thought of all this.. I think you're probably worrying too much. I doubt they'd be so dumb as to not make it an easy transition.. Couldn't most apps have 32bit and 64bit libraries.. That users can either download, or auto-download as part of an installation process? (if HD space is the worry).. Otherwise fatter binaries might not be an issue.. How *much* fatter? And how easy will it be within xcode to optimise for both? Other (smaller) platforms cope fine supporting multiple hardware architectures, I don't see why it's going to be a bad thing for mac users.

Apple could have long term plans to keep 32-bit support anyway, for much smaller (handheld? Tablet?) devices.. So there might not really be a transition at all if they coexist for a long time. I think it's bad spreading FUD about this upcoming 'big transition' as it might not be that eventful at all from a user perspective.