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 Powerbook and iMac in January?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
While this is all a lot of speculation, I think the ONE thing we should count on is that Apple's Pro applications will be among the first to be available.shawnce said:
Apple's SW division has known about this switch much longer than the development community in general, plus it has all of Apple's resources. That gives them about 18 months, and Apple's resources (2005 FY earnings $1.3 billion).
Do you really think that the FCP team is just waking up to this? Or that Aperture, which is due to be released, is not already being developed cross-platform?
stephenli said:
Do you ever bother to read the Quarterly financial reports? Apple does not actually break down their margins, but they do elude to them by product category. Either blaming or praising results by increased or decreased sales in a certain section (ie. this quarters profit margins results were impacted by the increase/ decrease sales of ______)
In addition to that, usually within weeks of a new product release someone breaks down the estimated product cost by disassembling it and adding up the parts.
And market analysts will also point to incresed/decreased sales in products and there margins when making predictions.
So while it is not true that costs more equals more profit. In the case of Apple it is generally the rule. The iMac and Powerbook command very generous margins in comparison to the rest of the industry.
Will the new intel iMac, when it does appear, be considered iMac rev D or iMactel rev A?
Anyway, I hope Apple thinks a mid range machine deserves a mid range graphics card which I feel wasn't the case with the last three iMacs.
Anyway, I hope Apple thinks a mid range machine deserves a mid range graphics card which I feel wasn't the case with the last three iMacs.
(From apple insider)
Why does that sound lame, when compared to 3.8ghz laptop from alienware. We're talking about powerbooks right?
http://www.alienware.com/product_de...sCode=PC-LT-MJ12M-7700-CP&SubCode=SKU-DEFAULT
Edit:Yes it look like crap but balance between design and power could appen.
With my 800mhz PPC iBook loading games and levels the same speed as a 1.6ghz intel p4 with twice the processor and ram, this seems more like a downgrade to me. Dual-core 2.0 would give the powerbook the reputation it deserve. (Note I do know Im asking for a lot, but still, 2.16ghz max? hurg)
Maybe if they want to compromise speed and design they could make a 3ghz or something. People do like thin computer, but not at any cost.
The Alienware is a desktop replacement machine. It is 2 inches thick, has a starting weight of 10 pounds (more if you add additional hard drives, etc.), and despite its 12-cell 6600 mA battery, no battery life figures are mentioned anywhere on the website (or at least I could not find them). It will probably run for 1 hour on a full charge. It uses a standard desktop Pentium 4 at 3.8 GHz which may be equivalent to about a 2.5 or 2.7 Ghz Pentium M if such a thing existed.pionata said:
A dual-core Yonah at 2.16 GHz is very fast, offers a total of 4.32 GHz of raw power if you crave megahertz, consumes much less power, allows Apple to shrink the PowerBook by 20-25%, and may provide a battery life of 5+ hours.
I don't know about you, but to me an Apple PowerBook using a dual-core Yonah is FAR more appealing.
CalfCanuck said:
Yes Apple's Pro applications will be one of the first to go native but I just don't see them being ready in 1Q06 (2Q06 is still pushing it). Some many be but I doubt anything close to all. Like I said before Apple may surprise us.
Actually a fair amount didn't know much before the the general developer community did (ask some of the developers that work at Apple). Yeah Apple has been making large investments in R&D for several years now, however you really cannot grow a developer team much in 12 months and have them actually contribute much to deliverables of this size (especially on existing products, in fact it can easily slow things down because existing engineers have to help bring them up-to-speed). So they have to do the work with mostly the engineering team they had in house at the time they decided to take this route.CalfCanuck said:
No I didn't say that. I stated, based on my experience as a developer, that projects the size of the pro apps require a decent amount of time and resources to make them fully ready for Intel _and_ test them... hence don't count on them day one in the Intel switch (why I think consumers systems will be the first).CalfCanuck said:
Also factor in that aspects of the ABI, tool chain, etc. are just now getting to a robust and well documented state.
It is very obvious that basically all of Apple's software engineering (including all the great documentation writers) are going all out trying to get Mac OS X and the Apple applications ready for Intel. It has been impressive effort so far.
Still I think folks are jumping the gun and thinking it will happening sooner then it likely will (at least in the market segments that will get it first).
...but that is just my reading of the tea leaves...
gammamonk said:
It is not to far ahead. All they promised is that they would be out by June 06.
I predicted on http://www.planetisaac.com that Intel macs will be there by MacWorld San Fran.
I am conviced that Apple could have come out with iNtel Macs last June but could not do it ASAP without others on board.
If a team at Apple has been secretly compiling OS X on Intel for the past 5 years, it is possible that they have been compiling some number of Apple apps -- pro, prosumer, and consumer alike -- on Intel as well. One does not cross compile the operating system alone to prepare for a contingency. If Apple had a well-organized contingency plan all this time (instead of an ad-hoc group of people who ported to Intel for the fun of it), it is reasonable to think that this team was chartered to cross compile software apps as well.shawnce said:
pionata said:
The Alienware "laptop" you reference uses a normal desktop class Pentium 4 CPU. This thing would eat batteries especially if you went with a 3.8GHz version. This really isn't a laptop but a luggable that needs to be tethered to wall.
A Pentium M in mid 2 GHz rage could match this thing for a few tasks and would destroy it on battery life. You match it against a system with a dual core Yonah in the low 2 GHz rage and you start to match its computing power while still burning much less power. Then come dual core Merom (late 2006) the P4 will be outclassed even in performance (at least for many tasks).
The P4 and its high clock rates are dead for the foreseeable future.
generik said:
Listen, we've all read your 350 posts about the lines on your new powerbook. I think a lot of good members tried to help you with that problem, but you'd rather gripe and exaggerate about it. The post I quote above is a prime example. My much less powerful August 05 ibook plays dvds extremely well, with a quarter of the video ram that the new 15 inch ibook has.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beck446
I've read like half of this thread and nobody has given the correct explanation for why this rumor is true: the powerbooks and imacs cost more than the mini or ibooks. More profits.
Although Apple doesn't give the margin of each of its computers, it is obvious that the powerbook and imac have higher margins than the ibook and mini. It is equally obvious that each is more expensive. So the profit is higher for two reasons: more expensive and higher margins. That is why it is clear Apple will release intel on these first. As for anyone who thinks that they would sell more minis - enough to compensate for the above two observations - is mistaken.
Originally Posted by Beck446
I've read like half of this thread and nobody has given the correct explanation for why this rumor is true: the powerbooks and imacs cost more than the mini or ibooks. More profits.
xsnightclub said:
Although Apple doesn't give the margin of each of its computers, it is obvious that the powerbook and imac have higher margins than the ibook and mini. It is equally obvious that each is more expensive. So the profit is higher for two reasons: more expensive and higher margins. That is why it is clear Apple will release intel on these first. As for anyone who thinks that they would sell more minis - enough to compensate for the above two observations - is mistaken.
I tend to agree, although not with the same degree of conviction simply because we don't really know.Beck446 said:
Some posters are quite convinced the Mac mini will be first. I don't know why. Do Mac mini owners run less software than iMac owners? If software is the main concern and we'll have to stick to Rosetta for a short while, forcing the buyers of low end machines to be further crippled by Rosetta doesn't make sense.
afields said:Why is everybody complaining? This is great news! I'll be first in line for a shiny powerbook....
No I will. . . I've been waiting 3 years for my first Mac. . . I'll mug the person who gets one before me, and leave a few thousand behind in payment of course.
rosalindavenue said:
How much physical ram you have?
I have 512mb installed, and with the following apps running in the background it just can't keep up
1) Mail.app
2) Azureus
3) 2 Safari Windows
4) 1 Terminal Window
5) 1 preview Window
6) Adium
7) Skype
and of course DVD player.
None of those apps are remotely processor intensive, except for MAYBE azereus, but overall the G4 is really giving a pretty poor showing here!
Bring on the Intel goodness anytime now Apple!
generik said:
Azureus always slows down anything else I'm doing on my PowerBook or on my PowerMac G4. That's why I either use BitTorrent for torrents where I am going to download the complete torrent or I leave Azureus running at night when I'm not at my computer. That's the only thing really slowing you down.
ksz said:
Sorry, I didnt get that part about the dual-core. So the top end powerbook could be dual-core 2.16, NICE.
If that is the case I'll be getting one instead of a dual-core powermac.
edit: I guess I was so shocked on the "only 2.16!" that I forgot to read my own quote... lol
Actually, if you want to get technical, Xcode 2.1, released a while ago, was a universal binarylopresmb said:P.S. Anyone with a iSight iMac - check this out..
--Apparently the Photobooth App is the FIRST officially released INTEL AND POWERPC compiled program. Just go to get info about that app and apparently it will tell you that it was created using a universay bianary and able to run natively on both systems. I thought this was pretty dag on cool.....