Intel iBooks with Front Row?

[milkaxor]

Uh, cuz that's how the computer industry works? You get more for less money every time there is a system update.

$2299 - 933Mhz G4, 60GB, SuperDrive, GeForce4 MX, 256MB

$1999 - Dual core G5 @ 2ghz, 512MB, 160GB, SuperDrive (double-layer), NVIDIA GeForce 6600 LE with 128MB

Why would Apple sell this G5 for LESS than the significantly slower G4?

There seems to be something wrong with your comparison. You aren't using a next revision of the powermac. That is a significant jump with plenty of stops along the way. Also, you missed the part where I said they have been selling ibooks, well, at their current price point of 999. Why would they lower it? To entice more people into buying macs? To keep up with other laptops in that price range? The first is done through quality products and designs, the latter apple doesn't do. To think you will see the iBook at a lower price than 1k when it is introduced seems absurd to me.

 

[nataku]

The way I see apples line up.

MacBook mini -
This is the new 12 PowerBook. But it is now using a 10" WXGA screen, 2 lbs, and the new Ultra Low Voltage Core Duo CPU. Price ~$1400

MacBook -
The iBook replacement 13.3" widescreen economical. But there is an option to upgrade to dual core. Price $999 and $1300

MacBook Pro -
Current 15" offering will be upgaded to 1.83 -> 2 Ghz same price points.

MacBook XL -
Top of the line 17"

MacBook mini with a 10 inch screen??? "Ultra" low voltage processor? Half of the physical dimensions of your MacBook would be the battery I suppose. Sorry but I also doubt that Apple will immediately upgrade the 1.83Ghz MBPro since it hasn't even been 6 months out in the Market.

I know that MacBook sounds a bit weird but putting an XL after makes it sound like some Tshirt.

 

[Natron]

Everyone here who doubts there will be a laptop under the $999 price point, or thinks Apple selling one below that is "absurd", what did you say about the mac mini? I'm not trying to start an argument or anything, it just seems like saying "Apple doesn't care about making a cheaper product", is kinda disproven by the mac mini.

 

[Elrond39]

Everyone here who doubts there will be a laptop under the $999 price point, or thinks Apple selling one below that is "absurd", what did you say about the mac mini? I'm not trying to start an argument or anything, it just seems like saying "Apple doesn't care about making a cheaper product", is kinda disproven by the mac mini.

but that's why the mac mini is an entry-level product... The iBook is maybe the 'entry' laptop, but I'm not sure if Apple will go so far as to put out a cheap laptop. It just doesn't feel right, I guess is all I can say.

 

[guffman]

Everyone here who doubts there will be a laptop under the $999 price point, or thinks Apple selling one below that is "absurd", what did you say about the mac mini? I'm not trying to start an argument or anything, it just seems like saying "Apple doesn't care about making a cheaper product", is kinda disproven by the mac mini.

It's just that the Mac Mini was able to be so cheap becuase it didn't include anything. No monitor, no keyboard, no battery, no mouse, and barley the specs that a low-end laptop user would want, unless you get the $700 model and even then your without all of the above. So, becuase a laptop is a complete package, it just doesn't seem reasonable for a laptop that comes with OSX, iLife '06, and all the other pre-installed software to start under $999. I hope I'm wrong, but considering it's Apple, I somehow doubt it.

 

[AidenShaw]

why would QuickTransit "suck" on a solo ?

I'd like to question all the posts that say that QuickTransit (Rosetta) would "suck" on a Solo...

Can anyone back up that claim with facts?

It would seem like there are three possible ways that Rosetta could work.

1. Rosetta itself is single-threaded - even when running an application that is multi-threaded on a dual CPU. (Virtual PC is like this - even on a dual it can only use one CPU)
2. Rosetta mimics the thread behaviour of the emulated application. Single-threaded apps run in a single Rosetta thread, multi-threaded apps run in multi-threads (each app thread is a Rosetta thread)
3. Rosetta runs additional threads for Rosetta work - so that a single-threaded app can do application work on one CPU and Rosetta overhead on another. (Not sure that this would be possible - since the application would need to wait for code to be translated, doing the translation in a separate thread might not increase parallelism.)

If you Yahoo! for "rosetta single-threaded", it looks like #3 is not the case.

Yet, #3 is the only case where a dual would really help Rosetta compared to a single-core G4. (In case #1, a dual would be of no help for any app. In case #2, a dual would help MT apps - just like a dual PPC would help those apps.)

Can anyone find any proof that #1, #2 or #3 is the case?

 

[Peace]

By the time the new iBook ( yup..thats the name ) comes out in spring most mainstream apps will be universal binaries so the talk about Rosetta is kind of useless.The typical iBook user wont even use it..I'm sure there will be some folks that try to load up an overbloated non-iBook type app and then complain their new Intel iBook is slow...

But when all is said and done people will like them..Even if they "look" the same

 

[im_noahselby]

I predict we will see two iBook configurations:

$1299 - 13.3" - Combo / 60GB HD
$1499 - 13.3" - Super / 80GB HD / iSight

Noah

 

[steve_hill4]

By the time the new iBook ( yup..thats the name ) comes out in spring most mainstream apps will be universal binaries so the talk about Rosetta is kind of useless.The typical iBook user wont even use it..I'm sure there will be some folks that try to load up an overbloated non-iBook type app and then complain their new Intel iBook is slow...

But when all is said and done people will like them..Even if they "look" the same

Yeah, they will buy a MacBook Express, buy Adobe CS2 and complain it won't run or is too slow, (requires 384MB for single app, so the 512MB shipped RAM would just do it, but if using more than one app, might not be enough RAM).

In response to AidenShaw though, I have to agree it would be more likely not lead to major speed decreases running Rosetta on a new iBook replacement. While it is not clear how it runs, perhaps we could tell by seeing what loads each processor is under during Rosetta usage, (try to minimise usage or stop all Universal binaries first), and if it appears to be running on just the one processor core, we should have an answer to what, if any, effect it might have on a Core Solo.

Unfortunately the only one I have access to is at work and I'm not back in until Wednesday, but can try and run some PPC binaries on it if I get a chance and see what effect we get. If someone wants to beat me to it, feel free.

 

[Peace]

Yeah, they will buy a MacBook Express, buy Adobe CS2 and complain it won't run or is too slow, (requires 384MB for single app, so the 512MB shipped RAM would just do it, but if using more than one app, might not be enough RAM).

In response to AidenShaw though, I have to agree it would be more likely not lead to major speed decreases running Rosetta on a new iBook replacement. While it is not clear how it runs, perhaps we could tell by seeing what loads each processor is under during Rosetta usage, (try to minimise usage or stop all Universal binaries first), and if it appears to be running on just the one processor core, we should have an answer to what, if any, effect it might have on a Core Solo.

Unfortunately the only one I have access to is at work and I'm not back in until Wednesday, but can try and run some PPC binaries on it if I get a chance and see what effect we get. If someone wants to beat me to it, feel free.

I just turned off one of the cores on my Intel iMac.
I then opened 2 Rosetta apps.Excel and NetNewsWire..
I think the "translate" app is Rosetta
While the initial start-up ate up some cpu bandwidth ( around 90% ) it quickly mellowed out to this :

 

[mrgreen4242]

There seems to be something wrong with your comparison. You aren't using a next revision of the powermac. That is a significant jump with plenty of stops along the way. Also, you missed the part where I said they have been selling ibooks, well, at their current price point of 999. Why would they lower it? To entice more people into buying macs? To keep up with other laptops in that price range? The first is done through quality products and designs, the latter apple doesn't do. To think you will see the iBook at a lower price than 1k when it is introduced seems absurd to me.

I was just proving a point. I am pretty sure that Apple will have a significantly sub-$1000 iBook. I think $900 or even $800 is definitely in our future. It'll be pretty low spec, but it will be something usable. It may not be right away, but very very soon.

Apple most certainly is moving into the low end, cheap markets. The mini, and it's success points to that. Sure, it's still $300-400 more than a decent Dell machine when you figure in monitor and keyboard and mouse, but it used to be the cheapest iMac G5 was, what, $1500 compared to an $800 Dell. The gap is narrowing.

Apple isn't going to shrink their margins much, but the cost of the machines are going to drop. The G4 and G5 weren't terribly expensive, but the custom designed logic boards, the firmware, etc etc were. Going to Intel is going to cut some cost out of these computers. Apple KNOWS their market share is growing and they would be idiots not to capitalize on this up trend by doing everything they can to sell more computers.

I predict we will see two iBook configurations:

$1299 - 13.3" - Combo / 60GB HD
$1499 - 13.3" - Super / 80GB HD / iSight

They aren't going to have the cheapest laptop over $999.

but that's why the mac mini is an entry-level product... The iBook is maybe the 'entry' laptop, but I'm not sure if Apple will go so far as to put out a cheap laptop. It just doesn't feel right, I guess is all I can say.

We've all been Apple uses so long that we think $1000 is normal and anything less is cheap. You can get a NICE windows laptop for $750 easily. An $800 machine isn't cheap, it is midrange for most of the market.

And lastly...

I'd like to question all the posts that say that QuickTransit (Rosetta) would "suck" on a Solo...

Can anyone back up that claim with facts?

It would seem like there are three possible ways that Rosetta could work.
Rosetta itself is single-threaded - even when running an application that is multi-threaded on a dual CPU. (Virtual PC is like this - even on a dual it can only use one CPU)
Rosetta mimics the thread behaviour of the emulated application. Single-threaded apps run in a single Rosetta thread, multi-threaded apps run in multi-threads (each app thread is a Rosetta thread)
Rosetta runs additional threads for Rosetta work - so that a single-threaded app can do application work on one CPU and Rosetta overhead on another. (Not sure that this would be possible - since the application would need to wait for code to be translated, doing the translation in a separate thread might not increase parallelism.)
If you Yahoo! for "rosetta single-threaded", it looks like #3 is not the case.

Yet, #3 is the only case where a dual would really help Rosetta compared to a single-core G4. (In case #1, a dual would be of no help for any app. In case #2, a dual would help MT apps - just like a dual PPC would help those apps.)

Can anyone find any proof that #1, #2 or #3 is the case?

I swear I read that Rosetta loads WITH each thread that normally, so it'd be closest to #3... an app with one thread would load it's thread, with the Rossetta 'headers' and multithreads would run multithreaded... I will see if I can find where I read that.

 

[Photorun]

I just turned off one of the cores on my Intel iMac.
I then opened 2 Rosetta apps.Excel and NetNewsWire..
I think the "translate" app is Rosetta
While the initial start-up ate up some cpu bandwidth ( around 90% ) it quickly mellowed out to this :

You wouldn't to happen any of the more intensive apps like Adobe Photoshop, Illustrator, or InDesign to see how they perform and/or use up processors under Rosetta, would ya?

 

[Peace]

You wouldn't to happen any of the more intensive apps like Adobe Photoshop, Illustrator, or InDesign to see how they perform and/or use up processors under Rosetta, would ya?

If you could point me to where Photoshop sells for less than $15,000 sure!

 

[Val-kyrie]

Proc Pricing

But I checked for the proce difference of the core solo and core duo. It's 20 bucks of difference for same frequency. Actually intel doesn't really make core solos. The available core solo is a duo where one of the chips is disabled afterwards. So productions costs are the same.

So I think the Macbooks will get the slowest Core Duo available (when it will be much cheeper) so Rosetta will run smoothly. At the same time as the MacBooks get the update, I think there will also be an upgrade on the Pro line with 17" (and I pray for a 12") model.

The similarity in pricing is what bothers me. I don't understand why Apple would still insist on using a single core chip which is terrible in multi-tasking when the dual core chips are almost the exact same price. The only thing I can think of is that Apple could not use the upper end (2.0 GHz) chips in the MBP because of thermal issues or would not out of their stubborn desire for profit margins. Otherwise they could have had MBPs at 2.0 and 1.86 GHz and iBooks/MacBooks at 1.86 and 1.67 GHz. I am concerned that with their specs., Apple will price themselves out of the market compared to the competition--I expect Core Solos with integrated graphics to be under $1000 in PCs.

Also, I am uncertain buying a Core Solo would be all that wise--for reasons other than Rosetta issues. The future seems to be looking toward dual-core and 64 bit computing (a big boon for Intel chips because it adds available registers). To be without both seems a bit foolish.

 

[Val-kyrie]

As I understand it, it's not that they necessarily disable a perfectly good core (although they could if Core Solo demand called for that), but that one core may have tested as a failure.

Do you have any solid information on that? It seems that this might be the case, and that Intel might also disable a good core if needed. If the latter happened, it would be interesting to know if it could be reactivated.

Also, Yonah will be pin compatible with Merom = DIY upgrade?

 

[Val-kyrie]

Yonah's Top Speed

MBP is already at 1.86 GHz, other notebooks are using the Core Duo 2 GHz chip, and Intel is already selling a Core Duo at 2.16 GHz. I suspect there will be at least a 2.33 GHz Core Duo (or even 2.5 GHz) available by the time the iBook is introduced in Q2, and there is certainly enough room between a 2.33 GHz Duo and a 1.66 GHz Duo. Of course, the display resolution, memory capacity, graphics and ports will also differentiate them.

According to Intel's own roadmap, Yonah/Core Duo will only achieve 2.33 GHz after the next, only and final revision of this chip (Q2 or Q3?). 2.33 is the top speed for this chip.

 

[jhu]

Do you have any solid information on that? It seems that this might be the case, and that Intel might also disable a good core if needed. If the latter happened, it would be interesting to know if it could be reactivated.

Also, Yonah will be pin compatible with Merom = DIY upgrade?

intel did it before when the 486sx came out, which had the fpu disabled because it was.

 

[Val-kyrie]

Underclocking vs Undervolting

Where in Intel's roadmap does it show that there will be no speed bumps for the Core Duo for the next 6 months?

Go to any good PC info website, e.g., www.anandtech.com or www.tomshardware.com. Core Duos will not exceed 2.13 GHz for a while--a disappointment to many tech sites when compared to Dothan's speed.

Of course there will be speed bumps. The fastest chip will, however, continue to be significantly more expensive then the rest, and will probably not make its way into the MBP. And Apple CAN underclock chips (I know, it sounds stupid, but so is buying a Core Solo for the same price as a Core Duo) if it feels it really needs to cripple the iBook to differentiate them from the MacBook Pro. Underclocking also reduces power consumption significantly.

Better than underclocking is undervolting. Many PC sites show how to do this yourself to a regular Pentium M. This produces almost identical results to the much higher priced UV chips sold by Intel.

 

[Val-kyrie]

i'd like to speculate about the price difference between the Low Voltage Core Duos and the Core Solos...

...Apple could claim they have dual-core in every Mac if they adopt the Low Voltage Duos...

These are more expensive than regular Core Duos so I doubt they will be used in an iBook/MacBook; although I could see Apple using them in a new portable line with prices equivalent to or higher than the MBP.

 

[Val-kyrie]

Celeron Nonsense

A Celeron M based upon a Yonah core certainly wouldn't be that lousy.

First, I haven't even seen any new on a Celeron Yonah chip--do they even exist?

Second, the two points of distinction between a P-M and a Celeron-M are:
(1) the C-M has a lower cache
(2) the C-M does not include Intel Speed-Step technology

Do you really think Apple will use a Celeron only to give up battery life?

 

[Val-kyrie]

Realistic VRAM

Agree with you, it will be a consumer product. But so is the iBook. There's no difference. I have to disagree with anyone that will think it will have single core. Any rosetta app will be much too slow. Second, Firewire will be there. Too may consumer camcorders rely on this. But it will be 400, not 800. No need for in consumer models.

but what do you mean by crippled? Do you expect 256MB or 128MB of vram? Not in a low/mid budget laptop. That's just unrealistic. But that's not crippling a product. It's just balancing product between cost and features, while still providing an adequate product for the majority of consumers.

Actually, Integrate and a discrete 64 MB VRAM solution is par for Low-range laptops; 128MB VRAM is par for Mid-range laptops; and 256MB VRAM is par for high-end. This will all necessarily go up a notch to 128-256-512 when Windows Vista goes mainstream toward the end of this year. Personally, I think Fall will be a critical transition period.

 

[Val-kyrie]

No, by crippling I mean Apple intentionally slowing the bus down, underclocking the chip, lowering the cache, or something to make the hardware 20% or so slower than the low-end MBP.

But with iMovie now having real-time effects I do expect that 128MB VRAM will be the min. standard for Intel Macs. You can already get a 256MB card for the iMac which is pretty amazing considering how behind the times Mac video cards have been in the past.

Perhaps amazing for Macs but not PCs--Apple now has to compete with equivalent hardware--a good thing in my book.

 

[Stridder44]

All you guys bring your doubts and such, just like before the MacBook Pro's were out. "Rosetta will be slow" this, "Emulation" that....in the end they turned out faster, even if they were dual core. I wouldn't worry.

 

[Val-kyrie]

Guide for New Notebook Technologies

I agree.

For those who are interested, here is a link to a Guide for New Notebook Technologies from a PC site--I know it's not Mac, but the guide is still useful, and most of you would find it informative. Perhaps it will help some of you decide what you want in your laptops before you buy.

Here's the main issues with this new iBook / Mac Book, (Mini Mac)

- If it has only a Intel Core Solo, I don't think it will be substantially faster than the current G4 (save the system bus) which is much faster, 667 MHz).

- I am hearing the Core Solo actually costs Apple close to the same as the Core Duo (maybe 50-100 bucks more).

So if this is true and it becomes public knowledge, how will this sit with Apple consumers.
Not well.

It will be exposed as a blatant and obvious attempt by Apple to "cripple" the iBook, in order to have some reason to purchase the $2000.00 Mac Book Pro, thus driving up sales of the Mac Book Pro.

Not going to fly with me. I would hate to be a Core Solo iBook purchaser to find out it is 25 %, maybe 50 % faster than a G4 PB, not good.

So there is no reason Apple should use a Core Solo in the iBook, except for this ploy of driving people to spend much more money on the Mac Book Pro

- White is so old, and to me a disaster. It needs to go. I am a Mac Sys admin, and embarrassed by the "white" and the thickness, please a New Design

- Sleeker, silver, black, something.

It seems to me on the Mac Book Pro and the new Intel iMac Apple is just rushing to get the Intel machines "out there", just to do it. That's fine, but I am not going to be the guinea pig on the Rev A's.

We see no radical design changes, Yet.

Why?, because the next generation Mac Books and maybe iBooks will have the new cases.

In fact I bet the cases are already finished and Apple is just waiting until June / July to introduce them.

Here's to hoping the new iBook / Mac Book have the new case designs, I do think a new iBook and Mini Mac are slated to be introduced very soon, like Feb. March.

And the Mini Mac. It also better have a Core Duo (option) and still be cheap or I ain't buying, and it better not be "White".

Also, this Summer / Fall the Intel Merom chip comes out, so maybe that is when we see newly redesigned Apple cases.

I still think from here on out All Apple Intel offerings should be Dual Core, at least, (Quad Core anyone?)

 

[MacQuest]

All I've got to say is:

[all models widescreen]

11" MacBook [Core Solo / 128mb integrated graphics] @ $799
13" MacBook [Core Solo / 128mb integrated graphics / SuperDrive BTO option] @ $999 / $1199 with SuperDrive
13" MacBook Pro [Core Duo] @ $1499
17" MacBook Pro [Core Duo] @ $2,999

and [drumroll please]

17" MacBook Pro [Quad Core Duo] @ $3,499

You heard it here first! I ROCK!!!



By the way, I'm in NO WAY a fan of integrated graphics but if I'm not mistaken, this would increase Apple's profit margins on the MacBooks, and Apple is definately a fan of increased profit margins [and they should be].