Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Yes this is very sensible (I despair at all the 'dual-core Yonah' iBook suggestions).

danvdr said:
Looks like we finally hit "the rumor" for MWSF '06. A Napa in every pot.

I'm guessing:
MacMini: celeron/Pent. M; available Jan.
iBook: Pent. M; available Jan
Powerbook: Yonah/Napa; available Feb/Mar.
Apple will take the sales hit on PB's for a couple months to see how Intel design works on the lower models.
 
Merom

I for one am waiting for the Merom-based laptops. It's going to be a completely different architechture (Yonah is still based off of the Pentium-M), and it will be 64-bit (Yonah is still 32-bit), as well as dual-core. It will also run a slightly faster system bus (667 mhz, versus 533 Yonah), and have 2-4mb of L2 cache...

Yeah, Merom will RAPE Yonah... Expected Q4-2006.

Damn straight...
 
ShnikeJSB said:
I for one am waiting for the Merom-based laptops. It's going to be a completely different architechture (Yonah is still based off of the Pentium-M), and it will be 64-bit (Yonah is still 32-bit), as well as dual-core. It will also run a slightly faster system bus (667 mhz, versus 533 Yonah), and have 2-4mb of L2 cache PER CORE...

Yeah, Merom will RAPE Yonah... Expected Q4-2006.

Damn straight...
Umm I could be wrong but I believe that the high end Yonahs do have a 667MHz system bus.
 
I suspect that OSX will be predominately 32-bit for some time, given all the 32-bit x86 hardware yet to be released. Thus the advantages of a Merom chip reduce to a mere speed bump (and this is mainly in the FP/SSE area).

ShnikeJSB said:
I for one am waiting for the Merom-based laptops. It's going to be a completely different architechture (Yonah is still based off of the Pentium-M), and it will be 64-bit (Yonah is still 32-bit), as well as dual-core. It will also run a slightly faster system bus (667 mhz, versus 533 Yonah), and have 2-4mb of L2 cache PER CORE...

Yeah, Merom will RAPE Yonah... Expected Q4-2006.

Damn straight...
 
polinho said:
Sorry, just want to clarify something...What makes you think that Powerbooks are to first ones, and not Ibooks? Haven't the rumors been more incisive on Ibooks? Really, I'm just trying to figure out why are you still talking about PB's...Did I miss something...?

Glad you're paying attention and welcome to Macrumors polinho, land where Powerbook whiners outstrip the average folk almost 2:1!

They probably would put the Intel in the iBook first, that makes the most sense to all but the delusional few who kept saying the G5 was around the corner. The performance hit for PPC apps using Rosetta may be pretty hefty and only the consumer apps will be ready at first to work on Intel free of it. Hence the consumer line is the logical first to get the Intel chips, only then followed by the professional models later as more of the big actual pro apps (Macromedia, Adobe, etc.) get ported to Intel to work natively, by then Powerbooks would be in the pipeline, but not a moment sooner.
 
mactim said:
I suspect that OSX will be predominately 32-bit for some time, given all the 32-bit x86 hardware yet to be released. Thus the advantages of a Merom chip reduce to a mere speed bump (and this is mainly in the FP/SSE area).
Is OS X not already both 32 and 64 bit? I was under the impression that starting with Tiger it would be 64 bit compatible, so that the G5s could take advantage.
 
Photorun said:
Glad you're paying attention and welcome to Macrumors polinho, land where Powerbook whiners outstrip the average folk almost 2:1!

They probably would put the Intel in the iBook first, that makes the most sense to all but the delusional few who kept saying the G5 was around the corner. The performance hit for PPC apps using Rosetta may be pretty hefty and only the consumer apps will be ready at first to work on Intel free of it. Hence the consumer line is the logical first to get the Intel chips, only then followed by the professional models later as more of the big actual pro apps (Macromedia, Adobe, etc.) get ported to Intel to work natively, by then Powerbooks would be in the pipeline, but not a moment sooner.
Did you get the memo? Macromedia is pwned by Adobe. It will be interesting to see what stays, gets added, or goes away for Adobe CS3. And hopefully that will be x86 native as well.
 
No Single Cores

hvfsl said:
To all those that are saying Apple will introduce Intel iBooks first, well that will mean the ibooks will be faster than the G4 PowerBooks (when using native Intel apps vs native PPC in the PowerBook). So I think the PowerBooks are going to have to be first.

Also we are not going to see dual-core cpus in the iBooks, it will be single core only. Apple needs something to differentiate between them.

Lastly, when Apple said they would switch the professional line last, they were talking about the PowerMac G5, which is plenty of power at the moment.

LaMerVipere said:
I agree, it would make the most sense to have iBooks single-core and PowerBooks dual-core. (assuming both lines will still be called iBooks and PowerBooks after they go Intel) :cool:

Unless Apple uses the worthless Dothan chip, there will be no single core Yonahs. Single core Yonahs will not be available until April, according to Intel's timeline. The later release of single cores has already been reported on PC sites.
 
Randall said:
OS X x86 requires SSE3... hence there will be no old Dothan pentium M's. These will all be Yonah based pentium M's.

Nope it only requires SSE2 and SSE3 is stated as being an optional item for the Macintosh platform, in other words don't depend on SSE3 existing when developing.
 
Val-kyrie said:
Unless Apple uses the worthless Dothan chip, there will be no single core Yonahs. Single core Yonahs will not be available until April, according to Intel's timeline. The later release of single cores has already been reported on PC sites.
The Powerbooks will most definately carry the dual core Yonah's, but It's starting to look like (since SSE3 is not required by OS X x86) that Dothan may rear it's ugly head in the mini and/or ibook.
 
Tiger PPC has only limited 64-bit support, the advantage in PPC land is really just an increased address space (>4GB). But EM64T versus IA32 comparison is very different. The increased registers in EM64T give many types of code a significant performance boost. It's a shame that Apple couldn't start out with EM64T. But Intel isn't ready and OSX86 has likely been IA32 for the last 5 years.

Randall said:
Is OS X not already both 32 and 64 bit? I was under the impression that starting with Tiger it would be 64 bit compatible, so that the G5s could take advantage.
 
Val-kyrie said:
Unless Apple uses the worthless Dothan chip, there will be no single core Yonahs. Single core Yonahs will not be available until April, according to Intel's timeline. The later release of single cores has already been reported on PC sites.

Whoah... Whoah whoah whoah... WHOAH!

Dothan is NOT worthless! I have been running a 2.13GHz Dothan since May, and it is PLENTY fast! If it was in an iBook, people would NOT be complaining, believe me!
 
Does OSX x86 require SSE3?

Randall said:
OS X x86 requires SSE3... hence there will be no old Dothan pentium M's. These will all be Yonah based pentium M's.

How do you reconcile this with the fact that developers have been told to code for SSE2? (if I remember Aiden Shaw's previous posts correctly)
 
Val-kyrie said:
How do you reconcile this with the fact that developers have been told to code for SSE2? (if I remember Aiden Shaw's previous posts correctly)
Oh my lord. I have already retracted that statement if you RTFT. (read the f-ing thread). I got confused with the developer kit requiring SSE3. I appoligize once again.
 
If Intel ibooks get a celery M, I might have to throw a tantrum. Since single core yonahs are expected later than dual core, its hard to imagine an earlier release of consumer lappers with single core yonahs before the release of power dual cores. My prediction is a combo of the ibook and power lines into a single intel line, with the most portable laptops getting the slower dual core processors. And speed bumps as you gain in size. After all- its been pretty clear lately how limited apple is with its 12 inch enclosure... This way, no more separation of i and power. Of course for this to work they would also need a more robust BTO option list, to satisfy both the power hungry and the money concious.

Another option as someone has suggested, is Jobs announcing the dual core ibook with powerbooks blowing even those out the water. One more thing just seems too far off. I can't wait.
 
Randall said:
Is OS X not already both 32 and 64 bit? I was under the impression that starting with Tiger it would be 64 bit compatible, so that the G5s could take advantage.

Mac OS X 10.2.8 (and related Xcode / gcc) presented the ability use 64 bit general purpose math in an process when on G5 processors.

Mac OS X 10.4 (and related Xcode / gcc) presented the ability to use 64 but general purpose math when on G5 processors and additionally allow processes that link only against libSystem (no GUI, etc.) to use 64 bit addressing when on a G5 (give access to a 64b virtual address space, a HUGE address space).

Also note since the existence of G5 systems the virtual memory subsystem in Mac OS X has had the ability to work with greater then 32 bit physical addresses (starting with 10.2.8). This allows G5s to have more then 4 GB of physical RAM which is shared by all running applications and/or file cache (universal buffer cache).
 
TaKashMoney said:
If Intel ibooks get a celery M, I might have to throw a tantrum. Since single core yonahs are expected later than dual core, its hard to imagine an earlier release of consumer lappers with single core yonahs before the release of power dual cores. My prediction is a combo of the ibook and power lines into a single intel line, with the most portable laptops getting the slower dual core processors. And speed bumps as you gain in size. After all- its been pretty clear lately how limited apple is with its 12 inch enclosure... This way, no more separation of i and power. Of course for this to work they would also need a more robust BTO option list, to satisfy both the power hungry and the money concious.

Another option as someone has suggested, is Jobs announcing the dual core ibook with powerbooks blowing even those out the water. One more thing just seems too far off. I can't wait.
Upon revealing that SSE3 is not required by OS X x86, then I will predict:

January...
mini: Dothan
ibook: Dothan
Powerbook: dual core Yonah

June...
mini: Dothan
ibook: single core Yonah
Powerbook: dual core Yonah
 
Photorun said:
Glad you're paying attention and welcome to Macrumors polinho, land where Powerbook whiners outstrip the average folk almost 2:1!

They probably would put the Intel in the iBook first, that makes the most sense to all but the delusional few who kept saying the G5 was around the corner. The performance hit for PPC apps using Rosetta may be pretty hefty and only the consumer apps will be ready at first to work on Intel free of it. Hence the consumer line is the logical first to get the Intel chips, only then followed by the professional models later as more of the big actual pro apps (Macromedia, Adobe, etc.) get ported to Intel to work natively, by then Powerbooks would be in the pipeline, but not a moment sooner.

It doesn't matter how hefty Rosetta will be when your current processor has a 167Mhz bus and is 4 years old!

Seriously Rosetta or not a dual core 2Ghz Yonah is going to give even the PM G5 a run for its money, nevermind the current G4. Bring it on Apple!

On the other hand I bet it is gonna cost heaps.
 
Are you suggesting this as an option for 2006?

TaKashMoney said:
Another option as someone has suggested, is Jobs announcing the dual core ibook with powerbooks blowing even those out the water. One more thing just seems too far off. I can't wait.
 
Sorry

Randall said:
Oh my lord. I have already retracted that statement if you RTFT. (read the f-ing thread). I got confused with the developer kit requiring SSE3. I appoligize once again.

No offense intended. I only have a modem connection so I post as I read throught the posts in my tabbed windows. No need for the vulgarity, man.
 
Randall said:
Is OS X not already both 32 and 64 bit? I was under the impression that starting with Tiger it would be 64 bit compatible, so that the G5s could take advantage.

Yes and No!

OS X provides only partial 64 bit support limited to non-GUI apps. It is a really lame claim to 64 bit support.

Full 64 bit support was anticipated for OS X 10.5 but Apple has not mentioned 64 bit at all since the Intel announcement. In fact, the Intel switch may have been set back OS X 64 bit support for some years to come, considering software developers would once again be forced to re-write applications for 64 bit.

I for one, am at a loss why Apple didn't have the foresite to make this a single step forward to full 64 bit x86 SSE3 OS X rather than baby steps demanding more work of the developers.
 
The DTK does not "require" SSE3..It just happens to be using an SSE3 CPU chipset.SSE3 isn't being used currently..
Almost all compiling is being done for SSE2..

The P4 in the DTK also has EM64T instructions..
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.