Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Macworld San Francisco 2006 Rumor Roundup

Surely, it's still far too early for a Leopard demo? WWDC is the far more likely event for its premiere.

By the way, does anyone else think Jan. '06 was always the delivery date for the first Intel Macs, and Apple merely gave the mid '06 date to deter people from holding off on buying a Mac until they arrive?
 
whooleytoo said:
By the way, does anyone else think Jan. '06 was always the delivery date for the first Intel Macs, and Apple merely gave the mid '06 date to deter people from holding off on buying a Mac until they arrive?
Click to expand...
YES. I'm glad I was able to restrain myself when the Hi-res Powerbooks came out a few months ago.
 
AidenShaw said:
Not hype? Then why does OSX 10.4 "64-bit support" not extend to GUI applications? Why only terminal apps? Any why was Apple able to ship a 10.4 update that completely disabled 64-bit support without anyone noticing until after it had shipped?
Click to expand...

That is little too much of a spin... it is much more then just hype. It exists and it can be used.

Apple hasn't yet provided 64 bit support (pointer/long) via the Carbon, Cocoa, Core Foundation, etc. frameworks because it is a non-trivial task (all of them are heavily intertwined so it cannot be done piecemeal, Carbon is likely the biggest problem area). As a result of this Apple chose to provide 64 bit support (pointer/long) only via libSystem which is a much smaller set of APIs and a generally flat set of APIs that can be used independently of the higher-level APIs. This allowed them to get 64 bit address support out much more quickly and in a form that developers can leverage for processes that really do require 64 bit addressing (a vast major of graphical application do NOT need 64 bit addressing, in fact IMHO I would say almost none really need it... they could be implemented as a 32b GUI with 64b process back-end if developers wanted to take the time).

Note 64b general math for use in an application is fully supported as of 10.2.8 and related tool chain. Also many of the system libraries and frameworks use 64b general math internally when on the G5 to reap benefit when processing 64b wide integers.

Anyway Apple had implied (before the Intel switch) that they would be expanding 64 bit addressing to the whole of the user space APIs while keeping the kernel 32 bit. Basically one kernel using 32b with 32b and 64b versions of user mode libraries/frameworks.

Now the Intel switch disrupts Apples original 64b support plans because, as you and others have noted, x86/64 operational mode has benefits outside of just 64b math and addressing that make putting the CPU into that mode a worthwhile thing for all of the operating system. Also x86/64 work differently then PowerPC when operating in a dual addressing mode environment.

I personally expect Apple to come forward with x86/64 plan mid to late this year that aligns (likely lags to some extent) the switch of PowerMacs to a x86/64 capable processor. The release vehicle for this will likely be 10.5.

Anyway as you note not many Mac OS X application use 64b support that currently exists (or at least also provide 32b versions) so if Apple takes a temporary step back from 64b during the Intel transition it won't affect things much.

I rather Apple take their time... think out how they want to attack this issue... get buy in from developers (ala WWDC)... instead of rushing out a way of getting 64b support for MacIntels. Of course the sooner us developer know what they are thinking the better (I bet WWDC 2005).
 
whooleytoo said:
Surely, it's still far too early for a Leopard demo? WWDC is the far more likely event for its premiere.

By the way, does anyone else think Jan. '06 was always the delivery date for the first Intel Macs, and Apple merely gave the mid '06 date to deter people from holding off on buying a Mac until they arrive?
Click to expand...
Correct me if I'm wrong, but Apple NEVER gave a mid '06 date. Their position was always "by" wwdc '06, which theoretically was any time b/w the announcement and then. I believe MWSF was always the projected launch date, but they just left themselves a little leeway should any problems arise.
 
What about Astroid?

I haven't seen anything mentioned about "astroid" that was big rumors a few months ago. Anyone still expecting it?
 
shawnce said:
:eek: Lord no!
Click to expand...

(Sorry for the off-topic but..) why not?

Personally, I think Siracusa's Apple reviews are right on the money. And not just "X sucks, Y rocks" either, but well thought out, constructive reviews.
 
ktb53 said:
I haven't seen anything mentioned about "astroid" that was big rumors a few months ago. Anyone still expecting it?
Click to expand...


Asteroid missed us by a few rumors in length. The near miss should be a wakeup call to people on rumor sites. :p
 
toneloco2881 said:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but Apple NEVER gave a mid '06 date. Their position was always "by" wwdc '06, which theoretically was any time b/w the announcement and then. I believe MWSF was always the projected launch date, but they just left themselves a little leeway should any problems arise.
Click to expand...

True, I don't believe Apple ever gave an exact date (though several rumour sites and 3rd parties had pencilled in a June release). However, given some of Apple's previous promises (3GHz G5 anyone?), I doubt many people at the time of the Intel announcement really expected to see new Intel Macs this January.

I really don't think mid '06 was mentioned just to give themselves leeway - before the return of Jobs, a project running 6 months late mightn't have raised many eyebrows, but I don't recall any recent project (even a major OS release) being even a month late.

I think it was a deliberate ploy to keep Mac sales as high as possible right up to the Intel Mac launch.
 
shawnce said:
...Apple hasn't yet provided 64 bit support (pointer/long) via the Carbon, Cocoa, Core Foundation, etc. frameworks because it is a non-trivial task (all of them are heavily intertwined so it cannot be done piecemeal, Carbon is likely the biggest problem area)....
Click to expand...
Reasonable arguments.... I still suspect that in 2008 our 20-20 hindsight will look back and wonder why Apple didn't jump to true 64-bit at the Intel switch. Surely there was a plan for 64-bit APIs for *all* the PPC system libraries, and surely the Intel switch doesn't set that plan back to day one.

If Apple's solution is to copy what Microsoft does in Windows 64-bit, I'll personally commission a set of "Cupertino, Start Your Photocopiers" posters, though! :D

Windows 64-bit runs 32-bit applications in a subsystem that maps ("thunks") OS calls from the 32-bit APIs to the native 64-bit O/S API. Application library calls are handled by 32-bit libraries. More info at http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/d...s/win64/win64/running_32_bit_applications.asp
 
whooleytoo said:
True, I don't believe Apple ever gave an exact date (though several rumour sites and 3rd parties had pencilled in a June release). However, given some of Apple's previous promises (3GHz G5 anyone?), I doubt many people at the time of the Intel announcement really expected to see new Intel Macs this January.

I really don't think mid '06 was mentioned just to give themselves leeway - before the return of Jobs, a project running 6 months late mightn't have raised many eyebrows, but I don't recall any recent project (even a major OS release) being even a month late.

I think it was a deliberate ploy to keep Mac sales as high as possible right up to the Intel Mac launch.
Click to expand...

Steve jobs said Intel macs will start shipping "BY" June 06, not in june 06. That backs up the point that maybe Jobs wanted to give apple a little extra leeway if something went wrong.
 
WindowsSUCKSX5 said:
Steve jobs said Intel macs will start shipping "BY" June 06, not in june 06. That backs up the point that maybe Jobs wanted to give apple a little extra leeway if something went wrong.
Click to expand...

It was (if not mainly) targeted to let developers know that come WWDC 2006 that they should expect MacIntels in the market place. In other words developers you don't have much time so get going on universal support but also developers it wont happen tomorrow so you have time.

I also believe that Apple wasn't originally making a strong push for MWSF 2006 as the place for first MacIntels. Personally I am still just a little bit skeptical of getting MacIntels come MWSF but Apple may have had success with hardware development (or cut some corners... more Intel the Apple style of system).

With that said the rumors appear to point at MacIntels soon, I however still stand by my belief of low end systems only with high-end waiting for Merom, Conroe, etc.
 
prediction for MWSF:

* A Newton/ipod/phone hybrid with a OS X interface and RIMM push email technology.

<<read about intel's presentation today>>
 
shawnce said:
I however still stand by my belief of low end systems only with high-end waiting for Merom, Conroe, etc.
Click to expand...
Fine, but don't expect to see Core Duo in low end systems though. Just look at the list of PC laptops to offer it. They are top end systems.
 
Im pondering this whole Plasma/Screen Multimedia Mac thing, and it is making more and more sense as the likely release, more so than any other machine.

It would be a novel product using new Intel technology, releasing new laptops right now may be a "me too" sort of thing following CES using Yonah. Beside, Apple really wants to release their new machines with Memron, because it is going to give dramatically different power and performance than what Yonah can put out.

Also, this new system gets an Intel based mac on the street, but isnt going to require native apps to be available on the market, at least not to the extent that a Powerbook, Ibook, etc would need.

Its possible this could be the big Macworld release, with other intel machines on rollout this spring, and a PowerMac (call it a P5, LOL) release this summer.
 
Guessing what Steve J will say is always fun for me as I am always wrong.

My bets:

Mactel Powerbook. I don't believe that Apple (or Steve) will bring out a Mactel iBook that blows the socks off of the PB. I'm also not worried about the "Pros". I'm on my second PB and use it for business (as do a lot of others) and I'm not a pro. Photoshop Elements 3 is as far as I get. The pros will do their heavy lifting on PMs and Apple will probably continue the G4 PB for a few months, just in case a pro wants one, which I doubt.

Consumers. If the PB is using a Duo then the iBook & Mac mini might come out with a slower Duo. It would be great for a sales pitch and generate a huge backorder at the factories.

Obviously I'm thinking G4 -v- G5. I think Apple is going to move quickly to move G4s to the Mactel platform. G5 is fine for Meron migration, but that's not for a while. G4s will remain for education this year.

05 -> 06. Both for iLife and iWork. I think iWork is going to replace AppleWorks, saving the expense of moving AppleWorks to universal binaries. I'm looking for a full suite for iWork. Numbers probably wasn't ready last year and FileMaker should be able to deliver an "Express" version to round it out. FileMaker is used a lot in education and it would also provide a nice upgrade path to FileMaker as well as compatibility. I would like to see Front Row also released for all Macs (or at least Macs running Tiger) - we'll have to wait & see about that.

Shuffle update? I prefer the rumors that the nano will go down to 1 gig to replace the Shuffle.

10.5? I don't think so. Apple is going to release 10.4.4 if the Mactels are released and that is where the focus will be. Leave 10.5 for the developers at WWDC.

That leaves "One More Thing" - maybe two more.
 
You just can't leak stuff as a major corporation. Not stuff like that. Do you have any idea how much their stock has gone up because of those "leaks/rumors?" And whatcha think is going to happen to the stock price when the intel macs don't get announced? Plummet.

So I don't know if they're coming or not. But I guarantee that Jobs isn't leaking they're coming if they're not. That's suicide.

If they're not coming, he's trying to figure out just what to say to keep things afloat.

epepper9 said:
Okies. We all know apple has fed a few false things to some rumour sites, an example I believe is the rumour of an intel iMac in MWSF. Not likely. Fractionally more likely than a PM, but unlikely nevertheless. There seem to be too many iBook rumours around for it to be true. Anyways.. The Chances round-up:
Intel Powermac: 0.5-1/10 (Anything is still possible.)
Intel iMac: 2/10 (It got a generous update.)
Intel iBook: 6/10 (Update wouldn't hurt, though I believe it will be alongside powerbook, if anything.)
Intel Mac Mini: 7/10 (These have been updated a million times, but it does make sense to launch one.)
Intel Powerbook: 8/10 (It's dry and stale, needing an update. Seems like it is seeing it hasn't been rumoured all over the place. It has a few rumours and also the factor of apple being quiet about it.)
Something being done to/with iPod Shuffle: 9/10
iWork '06: 9/10
iLife '06: 9.99/10
They are all pure estimates, but they make sense to me :)
Click to expand...
 
WindowsSUCKSX5 said:
Steve jobs said Intel macs will start shipping "BY" June 06, not in june 06. That backs up the point that maybe Jobs wanted to give apple a little extra leeway if something went wrong.
Click to expand...

"By" June actually means before June. "In" June means any time in June. June 30 for example.

But "By" is just as ambiguous. For 30 days Jobs could still say "it's still June!", just as he could with "in."

But for me, "By" means before, or at least the same as in.
 
My little theory on this...

If this really is an Airport(ed) Apple TV it will be big! ....If it comes with a 10" Apple tablet to control it with, it will be massive!

Airport would mean access to everything on your home wifi network, all your Powerbooks, Lacie's, iMacs, iPods...the lot, you could effectively control and access everything else, from everything else...Haven't centain companies, i couldn't name them, but the kind you see in Cribs, been trying to do this for a very long time at a very high price!?

I think Apple is really trying to capture the home market at the moment, and the timing could not better. With everything as it is, to get a properly intergrated home media solution that reaches throughout the house, costs a lot of money, if people are already using Apple hardware - iPods, Powerbooks, iMacs etc. something like this, with or without a computer in the same unit (different models???), that could unify them all...would be a very cool solution.

The rumored Video capable Airport also makes me think along these lines..

O i really hope that Rolo guy's not taking me for a ride!
 
Randall said:
Fine, but don't expect to see Core Duo in low end systems though. Just look at the list of PC laptops to offer it. They are top end systems.
Click to expand...

Yeah I didn't state it in this post (but in other posts) that it would be single core for the low-end if anything.
 
shawnce said:
It was (if not mainly) targeted to let developers know that come WWDC 2006 that they should expect MacIntels in the market place. In other words developers you don't have much time so get going on universal support but also developers it wont happen tomorrow so you have time.

I also believe that Apple wasn't originally making a strong push for MWSF 2006 as the place for first MacIntels. Personally I am still just a little bit skeptical of getting MacIntels come MWSF but Apple may have had success with hardware development (or cut some corners... more Intel the Apple style of system).

With that said the rumors appear to point at MacIntels soon, I however still stand by my belief of low end systems only with high-end waiting for Merom, Conroe, etc.
Click to expand...

I agree that you will likely only see low end items with intel processors at mac world. Powerbooks etc. will have to be close to ibooks in many areas for a short time before the powerbooks are updated.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back