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.
New iBooks, Mac minis and iPod shuffles at MWSF 2006?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
All I know is that there are too many Office versions.Peace said:Don't mean to step on your God status but I used to be a beta tester for MS and at no time was Frontpage included in any office suite.You might be thinking of frontpage extensions tho
There never has been an "Office Premium Edition".It's always been "student,standard and professional"
So looking it up - here are 2 sites that show a premium edition.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0782140009/102-7690850-3340950?v=glance&n=283155
http://www.softwarepatch.com/office/officexpsp1.html
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
See everyone, I wasn't making it up.GregA said:
Thanks GregA
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
EricNau said:See everyone, I wasn't making it up.
Thanks GregA
GAWD..here we go again..ok
Ya dont believe me maybe you will believe the XP guru Paul Thurrott
http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/office2003_editions.asp
note :Note: Some Office 2003 applications are not available in any suite editions. These products include Microsoft Office FrontPage 2003, Microsoft Office OneNote 2003, Microsoft Office Publisher 2003 with Digital Imaging, Microsoft Office Project Standard Edition 2003, Microsoft Office Project Professional Edition 2003, Microsoft Office Visio Standard Edition 2003, and Microsoft Office Visio Professional Edition 2003.
I guess some companies (other than microsoft) refer to the professional version as premium but Microsoft DOES NOT.
Anyway I'm kinda sorta wrong if it makes people feel better..MS did come out with Office XP Pro with the first version of Frontpage a few years ago.It was a very poor version of MS getting into the world of HTML and wasn't in market very long..
Can we end this thread now ?
Platform said:
I was referring to the MS Office for peecee's.If you wish to continue to argue a dumb point then by all means go for it.As for me I'm done
supersalzme said:
I think ebunton's post should be on the home page. Best evidence I've seen so far of a information leak.
[Edit] Somebody should call the writer of that article and find out where he got his info from. You could pose as an Apple lawyer and then maybe he would give up his contact
From the bottom of the article :
Michael Abernethy can be reached at (252) 527-3191, Ext. 273, or at mabernethy@freedomenc.com.
[Edit Again] I see they just put this on Page 2 this morning, my bad, still think it deserves page 1.
Too Much Hype.
If all the items rumored to be introduced in January are released it would more than double Apples product line. If you believe these rumors, prepare to be disappointed.
If all the items rumored to be introduced in January are released it would more than double Apples product line. If you believe these rumors, prepare to be disappointed.
Peace said:I was referring to the MS Office for peecee's.If you wish to continue to argue a dumb point then by all means go for it.As for me I'm done
*shrugs* You may have been a beta tester. I've been rolling out this software for 7 years now. I can tell you right now that Microsoft does box FrontPage in with 2000, and XP. How do I know. I rolled the freaking packages out to our graphics dept. Premium 2000 comes with two CD's. CD1 is Word, Excel, PowerPoint.....Gah. Just see for yourself...
If it makes you happy I can scan the front of my Office XP box when I get home that shows FrontPage bundled with everything else.
PS- Don't mess with God.
Attachments
It's quite possible that "Office XP Premium", and "Office XP Small Business Edition" (which we use), were not released in the US.Peace said:Note: Some Office 2003 applications are not available in any suite editions. These products include Microsoft Office FrontPage 2003....<snip>
Can we end this thread now ?
I wish there were only 3 versions. It'd be easier to work out whether someone had the program I was looking for.
SiliconAddict said:*shrugs* You may have been a beta tester. I've been rolling out this software for 7 years now. I can tell you right now that Microsoft does box FrontPage in with 2000, and XP. How do I know. I rolled the freaking packages out to our graphics dept. Premium 2000 comes with two CD's. CD1 is Word, Excel, PowerPoint.....Gah. Just see for yourself...
If it makes you happy I can scan the front of my Office XP box when I get home that shows FrontPage bundled with everything else.
PS- Don't mess with God.
For the second time
I GIVE ok?
<edit> in otherwords I'm wrong and you're right
</edit>But as a last word..since I'm Irish and you seem Irish also
Office XP FIRST came out as Office XP Professional and later came out with Office XP "Special Edition"..
According to Amazon
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B00005AFI1/103-1780319-3477428?v=glance&s=software
Office XP Professional did NOT have Frontpage..
YOUR Organisation may have a "Premium" edition..In Microsofts world it's volume licensing..I'm assuming this because you said you rolled it out to various departments so you must have had a volume license..
Now..
The Special edition did indeed include Frontpage..but by the time that happened..sometime around 2002 I no longer did stuff for Microsoft and switched to Mac's and gave away ALL my Microsoft software..
Frontpage 2000 was a little app included with Office2000.So little and so bad I paid no attention to it..
As of NOW ..there is NO version of Office that comes with Frontpage..
According to Microsoft:
http://www.microsoft.com/office/editions/howtobuy/compare.mspx
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
Is it wise to wait for a Intel Mac knowing that most of the audio applications I use such as SuperCollider, Cycling '74 Max/MSP, Digital Performer, etc. won't be ready for an Intel Machine? I know Rosetta translates PPC code dynamically, but I don't think that it will be very efficient in real-time audio synthesis... Furthermore I don't think native versions of this software will be ready until mid to late 2006. Do you think rosetta will be able to emulated these programs efficiently? If not, I might as get a PPC PowerBook now and ride out the transition until everything is ported to Intel.
mammajamma said:
From what I gather from the SuperCollider website that app is a Classic app.It's my understanding Classic won't be supported on the Intel machines.
From the Help menu :
You cannot use Mac OS 9 applications on Intel-based Macintosh computers because the Classic environment is not supported.
I think this class of application will work better on PPC, wait for a native version (however, note that the zdnet review of iTunes compression, in emulation, showed that it did it reasonably well).mammajamma said:
The new Intel machines will likely emulate SOME applications very well, faster than the PPCs they are replacing. Native apps will be fastest of course. And then you have the apps that won't emulate quite as well (the processor intensive applications like yours).
Still - I would wait until Jan 10 if buying now wasn't critical. Whatever the announcements are, the PPC machines may see a price drop.
SuperCollider 3 is a native OS X application. There was SuperCollider 2, which was for OS 9. For some reason I doubt Max/MSP or SuperCollider will work very well with Rosetta. There was a similar transition from OS 9 to OS X in which neither of the aforementioned programs worked via classic. It took 2 years to recode these programs for OS X. I imagine Rosetta is best for programs like Microsoft Word, which makes it more likely that I'll order a PowerBook G4 soon. Can anyone refute this? Otherwise I'll be picking a PowerBook soon.
mini/ibook Pent. M; powerbook yonah
AppleInsider had an article (see quote below) that states the Pent.M beats Yonah in single core applications (e.g. MS Word), but Yonah excels in apps designed to handle more number crunching (e.g. 3D). Couldn't the next MacMini and iBook be based on PM while the Powerbook gets Yonah?
"In a recent series of business-oriented and multimedia benchmark tests, AnandTech compared a pre-production dual-core 2.0GHz Yonah processor to a 2.0GHz Dothan-based Pentium M 760, as well as three AMD Athlon 64 X2 processors ranging in speeds from 2.0GHz to 2.2GHz.
In the business applications test, Yonah failed to shine, primarily because applications like Microsoft Word and Outlook Express do not take on a heavily multithreaded workload, which dual-core chips are designed to optimize.
With Yonah, "Intel has increased the L2 cache latency by 40%, and thus it is outperformed by the older, single core Pentium M processor despite the fact that they run at the same clock speed," AnandTech explained.
Yonah's performance in multimedia and 3D-intensive applications is a completely different story. In a Winstone 2004 multimedia content creation test, Yonah faired significantly better than the Pentium M with a score of 34.7 compared to the Pentium M's 28.3."
AppleInsider had an article (see quote below) that states the Pent.M beats Yonah in single core applications (e.g. MS Word), but Yonah excels in apps designed to handle more number crunching (e.g. 3D). Couldn't the next MacMini and iBook be based on PM while the Powerbook gets Yonah?
"In a recent series of business-oriented and multimedia benchmark tests, AnandTech compared a pre-production dual-core 2.0GHz Yonah processor to a 2.0GHz Dothan-based Pentium M 760, as well as three AMD Athlon 64 X2 processors ranging in speeds from 2.0GHz to 2.2GHz.
In the business applications test, Yonah failed to shine, primarily because applications like Microsoft Word and Outlook Express do not take on a heavily multithreaded workload, which dual-core chips are designed to optimize.
With Yonah, "Intel has increased the L2 cache latency by 40%, and thus it is outperformed by the older, single core Pentium M processor despite the fact that they run at the same clock speed," AnandTech explained.
Yonah's performance in multimedia and 3D-intensive applications is a completely different story. In a Winstone 2004 multimedia content creation test, Yonah faired significantly better than the Pentium M with a score of 34.7 compared to the Pentium M's 28.3."
~Shard~ said:Exactly - no need to hold back one product for another! Let's get those Intel iBooks out there, with the Intel PowerBooks soon to follow!
Um, the dual core chips are ready. It's the single core Yonahs which will not be out for a little while yet. And technically Apple has its sights on Merom for the portables, but is not going to wait around until late '06 just for that to happen - hence why they're moving forward with Yonah.
Then why does the iBook not have FrWr 800... Why did it take so long to get a SuperDrive... Why doesn't it have the best GPU available with 128MB of VRAM..... Because it would cost more, and it would "dillute" the value of the PowerBook. A couple years back there was still a "somewhat" respectable performance gap between the iBook & PowerBook... However, as the G4 stagnated, and the G5 never (realism here!) materialized, that gap became tight enough that you could barely squeeze Steve Ballmer's brain through it.
I don't see the iBook getting Yonah before (or unless) the PowerBook does. The first version is the 32bit, dual-core dubbed Centrino Duo. It has a 667MHz frontside bus and 2MB of L2 cache, as well as the other bells & whistles of the Napa platform. The PowerBook has a 66MHz bus and 512k(?) of L2-cache... You do the math.
No, I think it will be PowerBooks "announced" at MWSF, available around the first week of February. The iBook will wait until May, for the single-core Yonah, dubbed Centrino Solo. Next after Yonah comes Merom (September-ish). This beast will be a 64bit, dual-core cpu.
For my 2 cents worth, I think that both the iBook and PowerBook lines will split into 4, more-rounded, product offerings:
iBook "Jr.": 12-13" WS, Yonah single-core, Intel graphics, Centrino 802.11g, etc.
iBook: 13-15" WS, Yonah dual core mid-perf., 64MB PCI-Exp x16 low-end gpu, Centrino 802.11g, etc.
PowerBook: 13-15" WS, Yonah dual-core hi-perf., 128MB PCI-Exp x16 mid-range gpu, Centrino 802.11g, etc.
PowerBook Pro: 15-17" WS HD, Merom dual-core hi-perf., 256-512MB PCI-Exp x16 hi-end gpu, Centrino 802.11n, etc.
From what I've read the Intel Yonah will actually be more expensive than the PPC chips it will replace, so just how affordable would it be for Apple to put a dual-core Yonah in an iBook? The only reason Dell & Co. can is that their quantity is so much greater than Apple's, yet their gross margins are less... So, for Apple to compete they will likely have to shave off some of their profit AND what they charge, making a dual-core Yonah impractical for an iBook at MWSF '06...
Now, some would say that Intel may "favor" Apple with discounts after successfully wooing them over the past decade. However, wouldn't Dell & Co. cry foul, especially when they still buy more Intel chips than Apple will? Plus, the "lure" for a corporate or large educational customer to buy dual-boot (MacOS X & Windows or Linux) machines is intangible at best - especially if they have to pay an extra $150-400 for the ability...
I think the iMac will wait for Merom, too, because it's a "sticky" marketing point to drop back from 64bit G5 to 32bit Yonah, even if latter is dual-core. Best to bump its cpu/gpu speed and features around March, then wait for Merom to take over.
And the mini will not be replaced by an x86 Yonah dual-core version with the Holy Grail of DVR built-in - you've nearly doubled the price! Also, for economy Apple would have to dump the 2.5" HD in favor of cheaper, bigger & faster 3.5" models... No, if anything, Apple will intro a "Big mini" with those features, though I think it would have a different name.
The mini will live on, switching to Intel when the single-core Yonah is released around May of '06... Why? Remember the original appeal of the mini, other than its incredibly small size? It was the cost! Add all those other bells & whistles to make a dual-core DVR machine, and it leaves a gaping hole for Windows switchers to fall through.
danvdr said:
While Apple has undoubtedly had "Test Mules" running MacOS X for x86 in the basement of 1 Infinite Loop since the early days of Rhapsody, and featuring every flavor of Intel desktop, mobile & server cpu (probably AMD's, too), we won't see any of them. Why? One word: TPM... As in, Trusted Platform Module... As in DRM & copy-protection.
It is believed that Apple's x86 Developer machines had a TPM chip on them, which evidently failed to keep MacOS X x86 off generic PCs... However, you can bet that Apple will make more of an effort with the official machines they release next year, so I doubt you'll see anything older than Yonah, which gets its official unveiling the week before MWSF at CES.
Don't get me wrong, I think the Pentium M would be a fine choice for both the iBook and mini, but I just don't see Apple adopting a chip-design that's been out for a couple years already. And the TPM is the tipping point on this - I don't think the Celeron M or Pentium M have it, so you know Apple won't touch it.
And before Apple can start offering expanded choices of studios and networks on iTMS, as well as their feature films, miniseries and tv shows, they need to ensure those entities that Apple has done a credible job of protecting their product. That's likely the reason we haven't seen a higher bit-rate for downloads - they're testing the model... So Apple needs to do its best to provide both hardware & software DRM. And that starts with Yonah on the Napa platform, as well as Yonah on the ViiV platform.
Norse Son said:
Excellent points, thanks for the insight. I have to agree with a lot of what you said.
Tupring said:
You're probably conditioned to think "old Intel" though, not "new Intel".
Remember that Apple decided to make this transition based on Intel's future offerings, not what they currently have - we won't be seeing P4s and the like in the new Macs. All that being said, the existing Pentium Ms are well-performing chips nonetheless.