Macworld San Francisco 2006 Rumor Wrapup: Winners and Losers

[jacobj]

This year's Macworld San Francisco was a total shame IMO ....

I mean none of the new products were THAT AMAZING !

iLife '06 and iWork '06 are so not worth buying (excepet maybe for iWeb) .

MacBook was the best announcement, however, the processor speed was not fast enough compared to other laptops using intel core duo such as Vaio FE series and Dell Inspiron E1705 (2 GHz). Plus i expected Apple to introduce a totally new design for the Macbook. It's not that i don't like the powerbook design but we could use some change after all these years !

I have to say that i was disappointed ...

anyone agrees with me ?

Unless I am missing something, Sony aren't shipping 2.0Ghz Duo's. The graphics cards is not quite as good as the X1600 and the hard drive, although large is 4,200 RPM. Plus the 1GB RAM is 2x512, the screen is 1280 x 800. I can't configure it either... I must be missing something..

The Dell does offer the 2.0 GHz model as an upgrade and a part of me thinks that it is good(ish) value for money. Fully specced the Dell comes in at roughly the same price as the MBP 1.83GHz model and so we can really say that the Dell is $200 cheaper - I'd love to be corrected on this one. So what I am getting for my $200.. OSX and iLife... I'm happy with that... actually $2499 cheaper and I'd still be happy. It's MS for God's sake.

Edit: I added the iLife equivalent software to the Dell and there is still some good stuff missing like iWeb equivalent and Disk Utility.. but hey.. Plus iLife is soooo easy to use.. now my Dell is $2,643.. what a rip off.

I forgot my conclusion. Apple rarely offer the absolute cutting edge processor. Performance/Dollar(I prefer pound ) is just not good enough to justify the cost.

 

[T'hain Esh Kelch]

Originally Posted by nagromme
I've been following LoopRumors' return, and hope they turn out to be a useful source. Most of their correct predictions this time seem like just good guesses (maybe), but even if that were so, to their credit at least they didn't predict a bunch of wrong stuff.

Me too, I find them interesting... (Except for all their annoying adds!!)

And predictions based on speculation which hits right, is actually quite good. This time and Paris last August they nailed it pretty much. They have quite a good score.

 

[Chobit]

However, 10.4's 64-bit support is almost completely brain-damaged. Cocoa and Carbon (that is, GUI or windowed apps) can't use 64-bit. Only simple, "terminal", apps can be 64-bit. The only way to use 64-bit in a typical app is to completely rewrite it to have a 32-bit graphical user interface portion communicating with a backend 64-bit worker portion - two separate jobs in the system.

Actually you stated the reason why this is not brain-damaged yourself earlier in your post. GUI stuff doesn't need or benefit from the 64bitness. In fact, it takes a bit of a performance hit. It would be a Bad Thing™ to make the GUI 64 bit. I agree this can be a pain for people who have existing apps, and apple should have done something about that. But for people writing new apps, this forces them to write in a way that's a bit more efficient. Especially since you want the GUI to be a separate job from the backend for most things that you would need the 64bitness.

 

[paulchen]

10 years is a long time... Ten years ago a typical Apple had a 1.2 GB disk. The maximum amount of RAM supported in a ten year old Powerbook is 64 MiB! (Not 64 MiB of video memory, but 64 MiB of total system memory)

The oldest supported systems for OSX 10.4 don't go back 10 years:

1999 - PM G3 (B&W)
2000 - PB G3 (Firewire)
1999 - iMac (Slot-loading)
2002 - eMac
2000 - iBook (Firewire)

http://www.apple.com/macosx/upgrade/requirements.html
http://www.apple-history.com/
_________________________________

It's safe to say, however, that the iMacIntel just released will be supported through the next couple of OSX upgrades.

More to the point, it'll probably be supported by OSX longer than you want to keep the machine. In a few years, you'll want something faster and newer, and 64-bit.

The 32-bit chip will probably be the reason you end up dragging the iMac to the trash can. In a few years you'll think that only 2 GiB (or even 4 GiB) of RAM is hopelessly small. New applications will be optimized for 64-bit, and some apps that you'll want will be 64-bit only.

The 32-bit MacIntels won't be a good long-term investment.... These are transition machines, and within 6 months or so you may see the real 64-bit laptop chips showing up. (64-bit MacIntels for Paris Expo?) How long will developers continue to focus on 32-bit - when the 32-bit systems might only be produced for a matter of months before 64-bit shows up?

If you need the speed and have the cash, go for it and have a couple of years of fun. If you don't have the cash - well, you might end up still paying off the loan after you no longer want to be using the 32-bit iMac or MacBook.

Sorry for my english. Your are right, but does anybody use their mac all his life? I thought about a period of 4 years max. I think that those who have bought an Imac G5 for christmas are the people who are no more satisfied. What I need is 4 years of compatibility with new software. With the new intel chip, it's like buying a pc I think. After 4 years you through it away because it only sucks. There are a lot of people waiting and waiting for a new PB, and now, they bought one and wait till february for the shipment and then? It's only transition machine. So they did better by waiting another year? I think with the Imac it's the same thing. Apple will never sell you in future a machine for the "future". They have to sell constantly new machines... With vista, it's the same thing. Those who wait to get a fast pc to use vista will learn that, once software and games installed, it needs a better pc than expected.

 

[AidenShaw]

GUI stuff doesn't need or benefit from the 64bitness. In fact, it takes a bit of a performance hit. It would be a Bad Thing™ to make the GUI 64 bit.

On Intel x64, the GUI would be faster in 64-bit than in 32-bit.

I agree this can be a pain for people who have existing apps, and apple should have done something about that. But for people writing new apps, this forces them to write in a way that's a bit more efficient.

True for the "pain", but bullocks for the rest.

The O/S shouldn't force the developer to partition an application into completely separate components that communicate via some arcane, home-brewed protocol.

If the work engine needs to popup a dialogue, it should simply be able to invoke the appropriate method defined in the GUI modules. The developer shouldn't have to establish a communications protocol to send the GUI a message asking it to popup the box.

Especially since you want the GUI to be a separate job from the backend for most things that you would need the 64bitness.

Why do you "want" this?

Think of a 64-bit Photoshop, able to manipulate huge images without resorting to work files and scratch disks. What would be the benefit of separating the presentation engine from the image manipulation engine?

Clean, modular programming practices would dictate keeping the presentation layer separate from the work layer. You don't have to force the developer to program using different libraries, and force her to compile and run the two pieces separately, and require her to add complexity to the solution by developing a new communications protocol for the pieces to work together.

Besides, Windows 64-bit, Unix 64-bit, Linux 64-bit and the others give a unified 64-bit environment. You can break applications into multiple pieces when it makes sense, but you're not forced to just to use a longer pointer! You can make 32-bit and 64-bit pieces, but you're not forced to.

The developers shouldn't have to completely restructure the 64-bit Windows app in order to port it to OSX.

 

[jouster]

Yea apple seems to have a good reputation of bringing out the newer version of somthing and keeping the same price as the old one. Fingers crossed that it's cheaper but ill still be happy if it's the same price.

Bear in mind that if it is the same dollar price, it is effectively cheaper in two ways:

1. It is a higher specced computer for the same price.
2. An item which costs $x in 2002 qnd $x in 2006 is cheaper in '06 thanks to the 4 yrs of inflation and (one hopes!) income increases over the 4 years. 2006 dollars are worth less in real terms than 2002 dollars. This may not seem like a huge difference, but go back a bit more: a 17" iMac is about the same dollar price as a 1978 Apple ][, but is, in real terms, orders of magnitude cheaper.

 

[steve_hill4]

While it appears that the Core Solo is some time off, and that the iBook/MacBook Express will almost certainly feature this chip rather than the Core Duo, I still have a slight suspicion that we may see some more iBooks soon. This is unlikely, but how about a final PPC speed bump to 1.5 and 1.67Ghz models, (the last processors for the PowerBooks)?

Again, I say this is unlikely and I expect to see the iBook go Core Solo next, but if there is indeed a time frame issue, perhaps we will see some final PPC based iBooks this Spring and then the first Intel based models about the time of the WWDC, maybe in time for the holiday season.

 

[Hattig]

While it appears that the Core Solo is some time off, and that the iBook/MacBook Express will almost certainly feature this chip rather than the Core Duo, I still have a slight suspicion that we may see some more iBooks soon. This is unlikely, but how about a final PPC speed bump to 1.5 and 1.67Ghz models, (the last processors for the PowerBooks)?

Again, I say this is unlikely and I expect to see the iBook go Core Solo next, but if there is indeed a time frame issue, perhaps we will see some final PPC based iBooks this Spring and then the first Intel based models about the time of the WWDC, maybe in time for the holiday season.

Core Solo isn't going far, the fact that Intel have one Core Solo, at 1.66GHz, and not at 1.83GHz or 2.0GHz tells us where that line is going.

However it looks very likely that Intel will release a Celeron M based upon a single Yonah core. Expect a single cored processor with 1MB of L2 cache - possibly by April or May. This is the processor that I'd expect an intel based iBook to be based upon.

Ah! http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/01/16/intel_mobile_roadmap_q1_06/

The Core Solo will form the basis for the next generation of Celeron M chips, which are expected to retain the old-style branding. The Celeron M 410, 420 and 430 are all 65nm parts and clocked to 1.46GHz, 1.60GHz and 1.73GHz, respectively. There's also a Low-Voltage 65nm Celeron M, the 423, in the works. It's clocked at 1.06GHz. All four chips use a 533MHz FSB.

A Celeron M 390 - a 1.7GHz 'Dothan'-core part - is also on the cards for a Q1 appearance.

No pricing information yet, but hopefully they'll be around the $100 mark, give or take. Including a chipset (Centrino) it should cost half the price of a 1.66GHz Core Duo + chipset.

I don't think the next generation iBook / MacBook nonPro will look anywhere near as attractive (compared to the equivalent professional line) as the current line. Still, a 1.46 Celeron M should outperform a 1.33GHz G4 in most, if not all, tasks. It depends on how competitive Apple want to make the next iBook ... hard when a lot of value is in the free bundled applications and OS that is never considered.

 

[MacinDoc]

Good work then, AppleInsider!

I always expected PowerBook to go before iBook--just look at the speed of Core Duo and you can see why. The rapid iMac shift surprised me, but then it IS a top-selling Mac model, and has pretty much become the flagship for consumer buyers.

I think the iBook and Mac Mini will wait for Core Solo (which I thought was expected soon, but maybe not). Additional MacBook models could come at any time--I bet two additional sizes (13.3" and 20" quad with dual-Duos? I know, let me dream...) will be out by end of March.

I also expect multiple MacBook names--not just "MacBook" and "MacBook Pro"--along the lines of the multiple iPod names. No need to force a division into two distinct groups.

Lastly I think the Mac Mini will remain as a low-end model, even if some OTHER variation of it (which would have a new name I'd think) were to gain home theater functions. Front Row/remote could be on the bottom Mac Mini--maybe--but nothing more costly. It IS the low-end entry point after all. (In fact, not everyone needs a 3D GPU: the Mac Mini could go with Intel integrated graphics--just so long as the price drops accordingly.)

I agree, for the most part, but I'm not sure about the 20" MacBook.

You are right, the Mac Mini has to remain an entry model at entry prices, so will have few, if any, added features. Even to keep the current price points, with the price difference between even the single core Yonahs and the G4, Apple will probably have to to with the Intel integrated graphics. There could be a media center Mac, but it will be in a larger form factor at a higher price.

 

[Chobit]

On Intel x64, the GUI would be faster in 64-bit than in 32-bit.

I'm sorry, I misunderstood your first post. You are, of course, completely right for intel x64. And I hope (and believe) Apple will have full 64 bit support by the time they have intel x64 chips in macs. I was merely talking about on the G5.

Apple, at least in part, wanted to restrict people from moving all their apps to 64 bit as most apps would suffer a bit of a performance hit. Scientific applications and non real-time rendering engines are the main things that would need, and improve, with the 64 bit support for the moment. From my experience, scientific apps tend to be command-line anyway, often time with a gui slapped on top of it. This way, the people who needed the 64 bit support, got it, and no one else used it without due cause.

 

[Whistleway]

It's hard to make a recommendation, since Apple has said nothing about plans for 64-bit on Intel. It's almost like a Soviet-era history rewrite - "64-bit" seems to have never happened.

Unlike PowerPC - Intel 64-bit ("x64") is actually faster than 32-bit. This is because the x64 architecture has some fundamental improvements over the x86 32-bit architecture.

On PowerPC, 64-bit programs usually run a little slower than 32-bit programs. There's no point in rewriting for 64-bit unless you really need more than 2 or 3 GiB of RAM *per application* (64-bit isn't needed for a system to support more than 4 GiB - the Intel 32-bit and G4 can support 64 GiB of physical RAM).

On x64, however, 64-bit programs run faster than 32-bit - 20% faster is a typical number. Even if you don't need more than 2 GiB of RAM, you want 64-bit if performance is important.

However, 10.4's 64-bit support is almost completely brain-damaged. Cocoa and Carbon (that is, GUI or windowed apps) can't use 64-bit. Only simple, "terminal", apps can be 64-bit. The only way to use 64-bit in a typical app is to completely rewrite it to have a 32-bit graphical user interface portion communicating with a backend 64-bit worker portion - two separate jobs in the system.

But, since Apple isn't talking about 64-bit any more, what do you do?
___________________________

Bottom line - if the slow speed of the current Powerbook/iMac is a big hassle for you, get the faster Intel systems.

If it isn't a hassle today, wait for WWDC - Apple has to address the x64 question then or it will lose all credibility.

And, if at WWDC Apple says that they do a 10.4-like 64-bit on x64 - think about switching. Note that Windows x64 is a true 64-bit port - graphical and other apps get the faster speed - while maintaining 32-bit compatibility for older apps or those that don't need the speed. Apple needs to copy Windows....

Thanks for the brilliant post, AidenShaw.

 

[fixyourthinking]

PowerPage/Think Secret

Both sites were off because they share rumors with each other ... the respective owners are good friends

I believe that these two sites were FED RUMORS this time around ... which may prove to be interesting to see who exactly at Apple is feeding rumors to websites.

My personal belief is that Apple may be testing its employees with information and development ideas - only to integrate their work into other projects ... therefore ... if you are an Apple employee - you may think you are working on a media center plasma - but really you're just working on iLife 06 or Front Row 2.0 ... you just have a beta mac/w plasma screen to test it on ... so ... if any person in this dept leaks to a website ... it can be narrowed down to whom the leak came from.

O'Grady's resume worsens.

 

[VanNess]

Well, since it's about winners and losers...

Winners:

Powerbook fans. After a long drought of barely incremental updates to the Powerbook lineup, Apple is a rainmaker now with the MacBook Pro. The only caveat at the moment is software. If you rely on Apple's suite of pro apps, life is good, but if your Powerbook is a currently a haven for mostly third party pro apps, then it's more mist than rain at the moment.

Losers:

iMac owners. After all of the "Special Event" hoopla last October fawning over the features of the "all new" iMac, less than 3 months later it's obsolete. It makes the recent Saturday Night Live parody of Steve Jobs look like a documentary.

Winners:

Podcasters and Bloggers. iLife O6 looks like it has some pretty nifty tools for easy creation of Podcasts and blogs

Losers:

Garageband enthusiasts. Since it's introduction in iLife 04, Garageband has seen tremendous adoption by musicians, music hobbyists, students and musically inclined consumers. And for good reason: there is nothing else like it out there. A lot of Garageband users buy iLife just for Garageband alone. Although iLife 06 adds Podcasting to Garageband, and that's a good thing for broadening it's user base and furthering it's recognition, Apple didn't even throw existing Garageband users a bone regarding new features or improvements. Virtually no incentive for them to update at all.

Well, those are the most obvious ones anyway.

 

[quigleybc]

the major programs I use (Adobe PS, GL, ID, and Protools) should all be native by the time 3Q rolls around.

I bet Digi Design will be very very slow in updating Protools to run Natively....very slow...

 

[fixyourthinking]

Well, since it's about winners and losers...


Losers:

iMac owners. After all of the "Special Event" hoopla last October fawning over the features of the "all new" iMac, less than 3 months later it's obsolete. It makes the recent Saturday Night Live parody of Steve Jobs look like a documentary.

Well, those are the most obvious ones anyway.

Obsolete ... are you serious? There's nothing obsolete about the "week ago iMacs" - they actually perform/outperform the current Macs - and will be "obsolete" in about 6 years.

An example - Wallstreet PowerBook G3s (233-300Mhz) + G3 Lombard PowerBooks (333mhz) and iMacs 233-266-333Mhz were obsoleted in May of 2005 with the introduction of Tiger - that's 6 years.

The iMac "week ago model" (G5) is a very powerful, very feature rich computer - actually it's the same thing.

Personally I would like to see Apple start to get on a 3 month (quarterly) upgrade cycle like the PC industry.

 

[MacinDoc]

Unless I am missing something, Sony aren't shipping 2.0Ghz Duo's. The graphics cards is not quite as good as the X1600 and the hard drive, although large is 4,200 RPM. Plus the 1GB RAM is 2x512, the screen is 1280 x 800. I can't configure it either... I must be missing something..

The Dell does offer the 2.0 GHz model as an upgrade and a part of me thinks that it is good(ish) value for money. Fully specced the Dell comes in at roughly the same price as the MBP 1.83GHz model and so we can really say that the Dell is $200 cheaper - I'd love to be corrected on this one. So what I am getting for my $200.. OSX and iLife... I'm happy with that... actually $2499 cheaper and I'd still be happy. It's MS for God's sake.

Edit: I added the iLife equivalent software to the Dell and there is still some good stuff missing like iWeb equivalent and Disk Utility.. but hey.. Plus iLife is soooo easy to use.. now my Dell is $2,643.. what a rip off.

I forgot my conclusion. Apple rarely offer the absolute cutting edge processor. Performance/Dollar(I prefer pound ) is just not good enough to justify the cost.

You are correct, Sony moved the PRE-ORDER date back to Jan. 24. I configured the Dell E1705 with XP Pro, a DVD burner, a 100 GB HD, a DVD burner, and the equivalent of iLife, the standard antivirus/anti-spyware packack, a remote, Bluetooth, 1 year MAIL-IN warranty, and 30 day tech service for $2697, as compared to the MacBook Pro at $2399 ($100 reduction for 2x512 MB SODIMMs). The differences are that the E1705 has a 17 inch screen and a DL DVD burner, while the MacBook Pro has a better battery, a better power connector, better drop protection, 90 day technical support, and, of course, OS X. So, I would say that both offer about the same value. Preliminary ship date for the Dell is Feb. 14.

 

[Norse Son]

Sensible and - I agree - On the Money.

Good work then, AppleInsider!

I always expected PowerBook to go before iBook--just look at the speed of Core Duo and you can see why. The rapid iMac shift surprised me, but then it IS a top-selling Mac model, and has pretty much become the flagship for consumer buyers.

I think the iBook and Mac Mini will wait for Core Solo (which I thought was expected soon, but maybe not). Additional MacBook models could come at any time--I bet two additional sizes (13.3" and 20" quad with dual-Duos? I know, let me dream...) will be out by end of March.

I also expect multiple MacBook names--not just "MacBook" and "MacBook Pro"--along the lines of the multiple iPod names. No need to force a division into two distinct groups.

Lastly I think the Mac Mini will remain as a low-end model, even if some OTHER variation of it (which would have a new name I'd think) were to gain home theater functions. Front Row/remote could be on the bottom Mac Mini--maybe--but nothing more costly. It IS the low-end entry point after all. (In fact, not everyone needs a 3D GPU: the Mac Mini could go with Intel integrated graphics--just so long as the price drops accordingly.)

Wow, you come across as a carbon-copy of my thoughts on the whole Intel switch - not that you're copying me... or I'm copying you... err... hmmm... We seem to share the same logic.

I did think we could possibly see one iBook at MWSF, if only because Intel listed the 1.67GHz Core Solo (single-core Yonah) on their most recent price lists, alongside the new dual-cores... But I agree, the iBook and mini will transition this Spring - when the Core Solos are released in adequate supplies. After all, that is when school districts generally make purchase decisions for the upcoming year (large audience for both machines).

And the mini DVR rumors were just too "out there" as far as I was concerned - it would have eliminated the mini's main attractions (price & size). No, I feel certain that the DVR box Apple is working on will incorporate Viiv (to some extent), with a large SATA drive, maybe a SuperDrive(?), and will use Front Row 2.0 to act as the brains for the plethora & babble of our AV system. It won't be called a mini-whatever, and will be more pizza-box shaped, in silver or black, so as to blend in with the rest of our components.

I doubt Apple will come out with 42" & 50" plasma Mac-TVs... By Fall of 2007 I could see an OLED display from Apple in those ranges, but the consumer space for flat screen TVs is just to crowded right now. Apple could not really offer enough of a difference to make it worthwhile to them.

The laptop lineup, I agree, could readily split into more than the 2 basic lines Apple has had up to now (consumer & pro). I said as much in a few posts this past December. However, I saw possible names, at that time, as iBook Jr., iBook, PowerBook and PowerBook Pro... So now, with MacBook Pro, I'm guessing the third choice of mine is gone, and likely the first & second, as well. But Apple should expand their consumer machines into 2-3 categories (10-12" subnote, regular 13" widescreen, and 15"-17" college/gamer's), and the pro line into 2, maybe even 4 models (11"-12" subnote, 15" widescreen, 17" graphics/design tablet, and 17"-19" extreme 3D/HD/DV).

As for the rapid iMac shift, I'm not totally surprised, although the "marketing issue" of dropping from 64bit G5 to a 32bit (albeit, dual-core that "spanks it!") Yonah I wasn't sure Apple would do. However, I fully expect a 23" iMac based on Viiv to "flesh out" the iMac line sometime around May. And around September the iMac will shift to the 64bit, dual-core Merom, with maybe a "low-end" model or two retaining the dual-core Yonahs.
___________________________

PS: Before MWSF '06 I, also, stated my belief that Apple would split their stock this Spring (maybe sooner!?!). And that Apple would announce a contest for the 1,000,000,000th iTMS download by sometime in April - well, if they're already past 850,000,000 it looks as though I was being conservative. But I expect the prize may be something like a $10,000 Apple Store Online Shopping Spree and a $10,000 iTMS Gift Card... I can't wait!

 

[Norse Son]

By their very nature PCs are obsolete when "next great thing" knocks

I was pretty psyched about the MacBooks, but roadmaps show that Intel will have 64-bit mobile processors this fall. Common sense suggests that there will be Intel 64-bit Apple laptops shortly after. It just doesn't seem to make sense to buy into a platform that is already planned for obsolescence in barely half a year. Any thoughts?

In the Mac world we've grown accustomed to computers that are still "leading edge" (for a Mac) by the time the postal service has squeezed in 2-3 rate hikes. However, on the x86 side Intel (& AMD) tend to refresh their lineup of chips about every 3-6 months. So, even if you wait for Merom, the 64bit, dual-core "follow-on" (important distinction) to Yonah, in about six months from then Intel may be pushing quad-core 45nm chips out the door.

It all depends on what you need the machine for. If it's tasks that most people do everyday, such as e-mail, websurfing, writing letters & reports, etc., then Yonah's 32bits will serve you well for seeveral years to come. Heck, most software is still 32bit - and doesn't (necessarily) need to go 64bit. But if you're into heavy-lifting, like 3D and/or HD-DV, then 64bit might make more sense for you... That's if you can afford to wait until September for the hardware and until who knows when for the software...

 

[Norse Son]

Apple's April 1st Anniversary Joke...

I think we should expect some of the missing products on April 1st (30 year anniversary). Like the Intel Mac Minis and the iBooks. Maybe even a brand new product like a 40"+ iMac Media Edition.

Well, if it's April 1st, could we trust anything that Apple announced on that day... Well, I think I'd give them the benefit of the doubt before I'd believe anything from Think Secret, DigiTimes and/or O'Grady's...

 

[nagromme]

Losers: iMac owners. After all of the "Special Event" hoopla last October fawning over the features of the "all new" iMac, less than 3 months later it's obsolete. It makes the recent Saturday Night Live parody of Steve Jobs look like a documentary.

Some people object when Macs improve too quickly. Others object when Macs improve too slowly. Actually... there are ALWAYS people complaining about both, at the SAME time

A couple things are for sure even so:

* Computers will always improve. There's no time to buy that makes you "safe" from that "problem."

* Your iMac G5 is just as fast today as it was last week. And it's still a currently-sold model with no software questions to ask.

I think you may have to re-evaluate your definition of "obsolete"

 

[Norse Son]

Compatibility?... Let me oil the cogs in my G3/400 Pismo...

hey, will the new imac intel be compatible with leopard? that's an important question for me, because I want to buy one tomorrow and I want the now os, when it will be in the shops, too. I have an ibook and due to me my father has bought an imac g5 20''. I hope you can help me.

Apple's fairly good at backwards compatibility of their OSs. I had an old PowerMac 6500/225. It came with MacOS 7.5 - and, yes, that's from the PaleoMacic era... After a couple years I sold it to a computer store, and the guy "was shocked" that I had MacOS 8.6(?) on it, because his info was that it was incompatible with my machine...

And now I'm running MacOS X v.10.4.4 on my lowly G3/400 Pismo PowerBook. Which was a feat in itself, because with the way this lemon kills DVD-ROM drives (3 of them), I had to take it to an Apple Store where they erased my drive (Panther v.10.3.9) and used FrWr Disk Mode from a PowerMac G5 to load my new Tiger... I could see how inferior my l'il G3/400MHz felt "taking its medicine" from that beast of a dual-cpu 2.7GHz G5...

However, with the anemic ATI Rage 128 and only 8MB of VRAM, I can't take advantage of any of Core Image's whiz-bang effects... And never mind trying to play h264...........

Bottomline: Any Mac you buy today, even in the past year, will be able to run most features of MacOS X v10.5 "Leopard"... And likely the same for MacOS X v10.6 "Alley Cat"... Beyond that - and we're talking sometime in 2009 - there's no guarantees... I know I wouldn't even attempt to put Leopard on my Pismo - I just couldn't break my l'il champ's heart anymore.

 

[Norse Son]

Well, since it's about winners and losers...
...
Losers:

iMac owners. After all of the "Special Event" hoopla last October fawning over the features of the "all new" iMac, less than 3 months later it's obsolete...

...
Losers:

Garageband enthusiasts. Since it's introduction in iLife 04, Garageband has seen tremendous adoption by musicians, music hobbyists, students and musically inclined consumers... Apple didn't even throw existing Garageband users a bone regarding new features or improvements. Virtually no incentive for them to update at all.

Well, those are the most obvious ones anyway.

If you buy a... hmm... need good comparison... BMW X5 today, then at the Detroit Auto Show they announce a new model, with 500hp Hybrid that gets 70mpg, plus all the other bells & whistles... Is your brand new BMW X5 obsolete? I just don't get why people want to have a funeral for their 3-month old iMacs, just because Apple released an Intel-based iMac at MWSF... That 2.1Ghz iMac G5 will still be a great performer in 2007... The only thing that may give it "reason to pause" (pun intended) will be the latest & greatest, must-have video games.

As for GarageBand; I thought there was something in there, related to the podcasting thingymabob, that (basically) allowed you to make your own music videos... Is that true? If it is, that sounds like a pretty cool feature. Then, again, I wouldn't know; my Pismo ate its last DVD-ROM drive in mid 2004 (3rd one!), and I can't use iDVD (no SuperDrive) or GarageBand...

 

[MacinDoc]

However, I fully expect a 23" iMac based on Viiv to "flesh out" the iMac line sometime around May.

Probably to be announced on April 1...

And around September the iMac will shift to the 64bit, dual-core Merom, with maybe a "low-end" model or two retaining the dual-core Yonahs.

Once Merom comes out, hopefully all Macs will switch to 64 bit, and hopefully OS X 10.5 will have a fully 64 bit version.

 

[Maestro64]

The Thinksecret mole has been discovered through the release of misinformation. Apple gave Appleinsider the right details and fed their suspect with wrong info...he/she is so busted!

I doubt this very much, it is not like Apple has these internal secret labs developing these things that no one in the company knows about until the products release.

Everyone who works in Cupertino knows about any and all developement project. Not like Jobs could seed bad information to employees and hope they would leak the informations out I think the employees would know if the product is real or not.

The only expections to this is some outside company they deal with or maybe one of the retail people. But the retail people would not get the information too soon since they are the last in the chain.

 

[Maestro64]

Whatever happened to that "Asteroid" rumor that ThinkSecret got in trouble for a while ago?

I was just think this myself, there was all this noise about this leak. At this time I figured the reason Jobs was so pissed off was it was at least a year away, because of few week leak is not big deal it hard to proved it actually hurt business.

The fact it was not released yet might be for a couple of reason, one to keep pressure on the courts to help find out who leaked the information. Two, the project has been canned, or maybe yet it was never a real project but the information was used to try and find the sources of information leak and try and shut it all down. If the last is true you can say it was a success since the rate of rumors and thier accuracy has been very low.