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

New iBooks, Mac minis and iPod shuffles at MWSF 2006?

Peace said:
I just can't see the engineers playing in the lab with OSX for both platforms and not saying to themselves " say..since we're doing this maybe we should be ready with our flagship apps too"
Click to expand...

Engineers were not just "playing in the lab with OSX for both platforms". Anybody who wasn't absolutely essential to get OSX for Intel running never knew about it. All work done behind closed doors, not talking to your collegues about what you are doing and so on. Pro apps were _not_ essential to get MacOS X for Intel running, so the engineers working on them were _not_ told what was going on.

I could see half a dozen FCP engineers sitting in the audience when Steve Jobs demoed the Intel box, jaws dropping, and their manager tells them: "Guess what you guys will be working on when we all get back to the office..."
 
ASP272 said:
I hope we will see a Mac Mini that not only has Front Row 2.0, but the video recording software we've heard rumors about. This way, you can plug your Mac Mini into the TV and record your favorite TV shows and Voila! Death to the Tivo! With this software technology included, they can keep the Mac Mini at the same price point despite the cheaper processor inside. Question is, is the Intel processor going to be cheaper than the PowerPC?
Click to expand...

I think they will.....but I really hope the give it a decent CPU and GPU..so it can be used for something more than Front Row.:eek:
 
shyataroo said:
What ever happend to the harvard arcatechture of a G4=2x as fast as a pentium of the same speed?
Click to expand...

You may have noticed that Intel is building two very different kinds of chips: The Pentium 4, optimised for meaningless Gigahurtz for dorks (countered by AMD in an act of marketing genius by calling their 2 GHz chips AMD something 3700), and the Pentium M which is instead optimised for decent performance at really low power consumption.

If you download Intel manuals and check the execution times for various instructions, you will find amazing stuff like an integer multiplication taking 15 cycles on a Pentium 4, and around 4 cycles on AMD chips, on G3-G5, and on Pentium M.
 
aristobrat said:
A shuffle with a small (26x11mm?) screen = a shuffle that actually has a chance to compete with its competition.

Google "DELL DJ DITTY" to see what the shuffle is up against.
Click to expand...

And that Dell DJ Ditty has the advantage of actually being available, because 90 percent of all Ditties ever built are still available for sale.
 
hechacker1 said:
What if Apple simply phases out "powerbook" and "ibook" and instead comes up with a SINGLE new line of laptops? That would solve the ibook before powerbook problem that so many forum users are complaining about.
Click to expand...

To maximise profit, a company will always try to have different products so that some people can buy expensive products and those who cannot or don't want to spend the money buy the cheaper product.

But there are also distinctively different uses for portable computers: 1. Computers that are carried everywhere all the time; they need to be small, light, and have good battery power. 2. Computers that are mostly sitting on one desk, and sometimes they are transported to sit on another desk. Users want the biggest screen possible.
 
Randall said:
Ever heard of Microsoft Word and Microsoft Excel? I know a bunch of people hate M$ on this board, but no matter how much you hate them you have to admit, Word and Excel are some of the best word processor and spreadsheets around. Office 2004 for Mac is awsome, and I expect 2006 to be great as well. Office is one application suite that Microsoft did right. :)
Click to expand...

Agreed. I have said it before, if Apple wants to develop a spreadsheet program for iWork to rival Excel, they're going to have to do an amazing job, as Excel is a great, powerful app, and I would argue the strongest of all apps in the Office suite. I am a Office v.X user myself and have no complaints with the MS Office offerings for Mac. I always keep my options open though and am willing to see what iWork 06 has to offer...
 
misleading "facts"

gnasher729 said:
The Pentium 4, optimised for meaningless Gigahurtz for dorks...
Click to expand...
Or, a chip designed to go to very high GigaHertz, which would more than offset a higher CPI.

Unfortunately, the processes hit a GHz wall - leaving the P4 as merely one of the fastest chips available.

gnasher729 said:
If you download Intel manuals and check the execution times for various instructions, you will find amazing stuff like an integer multiplication taking 15 cycles on a Pentium 4, and around 4 cycles on AMD chips, on G3-G5, and on Pentium M.
Click to expand...
Quotes like these are next to meaningless for O-O-O-E chips. If you had to wait 15 cycles for each multiply, it would be a serious problem - but you don't have to wait!

However, an OOOE chip doesn't stall for each instruction - it pushes them into the pipelines and retires them as they complete. A chip can have a hundred or more instructions in various stages of execution at any instant. (126 for the P4)

If your suggestion were correct, a 1GHz Pentium M would be equal to a 3.6 GHz Pentium 4 - which clearly it isn't. FUD
 
Of course there are reasons to move the PowerBook line over as well.

So even if this is rumor is true, I think Intel PB's won't be too far off. I expect all the G4s to transition early in the year. Maybe within a matter of weeks apart. I never expected ALL of them to be at MWSF, because spreading things out makes for more press attention.

Would it be weird to let the PowerBook be in limbo for a month or so?

Yes, but then again, the Summer of No iMacs was weird... and so is the Intel transition in general. It's not out of the question that there's some need to delay the PowerBooks, even if Apple doesn't "want to."
 
SiliconAddict said:
Nice thought....doubtful though. This is Adobe we are talking about after all.
Click to expand...
haha Adobe is probably still using Metrowerks CodeWarrior for development. The horror. The horror. :p
 
Back to square 1

gnasher729 said:
To maximise profit, a company will always try to have different products so that some people can buy expensive products and those who cannot or don't want to spend the money buy the cheaper product.
Click to expand...

Exactly! that's why all theses rumors are annoying me as a user of a pb to know that the slowest iBook will be considerably faster and cheaper and longer battery life than all the current fastest powerbooks.

But why would apple introduce upgraded pbs several months ago only to replace them next month?

Its's a quandry!
 
you mean...

Randall said:
haha Adobe is probably still using Metrowerks CodeWarrior for development. The horror. The horror. :p
Click to expand...
...that they haven't yet been ramrodded into using Apple's proprietary development platform?
 
Stonecoldcleric said:
But why would apple introduce upgraded pbs several months ago only to replace them next month?

Its's a quandry!
Click to expand...
Maybe they had trouble getting supplies of dim, low contrast, low resolution displays - and were finally forced to upgrade to the current screen technology? ;)

Or, maybe the Yonah Powerbook will use the same screen assembly, so there's no extra cost to upgrading the screen on the end-of-line PPC models?

Yes, a quandry!
 
Dell is planning on shipping Yonah based laptops ranging from 1.66 GHz to 2.16 GHz in February so this ThinkSecret business about performance versions not being available until spring is bunk. Still, Mac minis, iBooks and PowerBooks would be unprecedented.
 
AidenShaw said:
...that they haven't yet been ramrodded into using Apple's proprietary development platform?
Click to expand...
No, that switching to Intel platform won't be as easy as "ticking off the Intel tab" :rolleyes: Does Apple expect developers to believe that porting is that easy? Only in rare cases is this ever that simple.
 
gnasher729 said:
Engineers were not just "playing in the lab with OSX for both platforms". Anybody who wasn't absolutely essential to get OSX for Intel running never knew about it. All work done behind closed doors, not talking to your collegues about what you are doing and so on. Pro apps were _not_ essential to get MacOS X for Intel running, so the engineers working on them were _not_ told what was going on.

I could see half a dozen FCP engineers sitting in the audience when Steve Jobs demoed the Intel box, jaws dropping, and their manager tells them: "Guess what you guys will be working on when we all get back to the office..."
Click to expand...

So I guess you missed the part where Steve Jobs explained how Apple engineering was run..
He said ALL dept's worked concurrently with all other dept's.In other words when the OSX team was developing OSX the teams that developed FCP would share the info..
That's the way he explained it in an interview..Don't know where it's at but if you look around enough you will find it.He even said that was what made Apple different.
In the software labs at Apple all the engineers are under very strict NDA's.
Those engineers are very forward looking people.They arn't just thiking about bug reports people send in.And they certainly are working on newer versions of a good number of apps as we speak.
 
Peace said:
So I guess you missed the part where Steve Jobs explained how Apple engineering was run..
He said ALL dept's worked concurrently with all other dept's.In other words when the OSX team was developing OSX the teams that developed FCP would share the info..
That's the way he explained it in an interview..Don't know where it's at but if you look around enough you will find it.He even said that was what made Apple different.
In the software labs at Apple all the engineers are under very strict NDA's.
Those engineers are very forward looking people.They arn't just thiking about bug reports people send in.And they certainly are working on newer versions of a good number of apps as we speak.
Click to expand...
I'm not convinced that this collaberative effort extended to the OS X on Intel team before Jobs revealed that this group existed. Prior to the decision to switch to Intel, there would have been little benefit from this collaberation. Prior to the switch, this team really existed only as an insurance policy for Apple, in case IBM couldn't deliver the goods as expected.
 
Peace said:
So I guess you missed the part where Steve Jobs explained how Apple engineering was run..
He said ALL dept's worked concurrently with all other dept's.In other words when the OSX team was developing OSX the teams that developed FCP would share the info..
That's the way he explained it in an interview..Don't know where it's at but if you look around enough you will find it.He even said that was what made Apple different.
In the software labs at Apple all the engineers are under very strict NDA's.
Those engineers are very forward looking people.They arn't just thiking about bug reports people send in.And they certainly are working on newer versions of a good number of apps as we speak.
Click to expand...

Apple is very secretive between groups in some situations, don't dismiss that this has and does take place.
 
AidenShaw said:
Maybe they had trouble getting supplies of dim, low contrast, low resolution displays - and were finally forced to upgrade to the current screen technology? ;)
Click to expand...
Yes, why does Apple, which usually uses the most advanced technologies readily available, insist on using outdated displays and video cards in laptops, iMacs and Mac Minis?
 
Since none of us work for Apple's software engineering this is all hyperbole considering the NDA involved in such a move..
I will concede the possibility that few engineers knew about the transition but Apple has a water cooler just like any other company;)
 
Sorry admin's I'm 30 posts away from an avitar :D

Steve Jobs sure knew about the transition and I really don't think he's dumb enough to not think about his "pro-apps" moving over to Intel at the same time he's thinking about OSX moving over..
 
Randall said:
No, that switching to Intel platform won't be as easy as "ticking off the Intel tab" :rolleyes: Does Apple expect developers to believe that porting is that easy? Only in rare cases is this ever that simple.
Click to expand...

No Apple is being very clear about the issues and supportive in this transition. The developer support folks are doing a good job of getting documentation together, including best practices. Also the developer tools folks have been working hard getting the tools out to make this possible. Really it is going surprisingly well from my perspective as a developer.

For example <http://developer.apple.com/transition/projectscope.html>
 
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