MacEyeDoc said:
Ah- but you see, Apple is not the only company that will be using those Intel products- HP, Dell, etc etc will also be making Laptops and Desktops with them. The market- at the hardware level- is MASSIVE.
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.
Pentium M and Yonah Processors in Upcoming Macs?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Ah- but you see, Apple is not the only company that will be using those Intel products- HP, Dell, etc etc will also be making Laptops and Desktops with them. The market- at the hardware level- is MASSIVE.
plinden said:
Even if task does take 100%, my AMD system rarely slows to a halt like that. Of course, certain apps are worse than other. However, I have to tell you that Finder crashes are just as annoying. Staring at the beach ball for several minutes while the gentle normal bounce has escalated into a migraine-inducing one?
I dunno. Pick your poison.
Mav451 said:
Your signature mentions an iBook running OS X with only 128MB of RAM. That would be the source of the Finder crashes and beach ball appearances.
davidchristophe said:
Hah, you think its bad now? Before you only had to defend against PC users in general. PPC vs. X86.
Now, b/c you share technology with X86 (Intel), you get to join on Intel Vs. AMD now. And that's on top of OSX vs. XP of course. Its too bad there's no bad blood between nVidia and ATi users here like it is on PC boards. That's the fun you're missing out on hahah.
*I wonder what happened to the "Who has the Power" site. It claimed PPC's high FLOP benches as the top reasons Macs are better. Oh, they are sure eating crow now.
davidchristophe said:
Don't forget a complete bibliography with references cited in the proper format. Double-spaced.
Your taking my post out of context with my hypothetical example ( which admittedly, may be a poor one!). At the moment, Intel rely a lot on PCs - that is mass market, there are PDAs and Smartphones amongst others.
If there wasn't microsoft - if microsoft hadn't made windows, of course there would be alternatives, there would be another OS to fill that hole - it may have been CP/M, IBM's OS2 ( which was a joint project with microsoft at one point), I don't think it would be Apple, however.
If there wasn't microsoft - if microsoft hadn't made windows, of course there would be alternatives, there would be another OS to fill that hole - it may have been CP/M, IBM's OS2 ( which was a joint project with microsoft at one point), I don't think it would be Apple, however.
B_Gates said:
I'm excited
Befor the big news, my plan was to get a new Dual G5 Powermac to replace my Dual G5 I have now
But if this specualtion is anywhere near the mark, I'll likely keep my Dual G5 and slowly max the ram out over time.
And If Powerbooks are out by the end of '06, I'll probably get one of those. Can you imagine the specs? Can you imagine how beautiful that sucker is going to be? With all or most of the thermal issues tackled, we should be seeing some incredibly beautiful, incredibly inspired Industrial Design coming from Apple. They've got a great deal of nay-sayers to quiet.
I'll take a 15" PB with an HD screen, Merom Dual Core cpu, 2 gigs of ram, and a 120 gig HD - all encased in a beautiful little box, thanks!
Befor the big news, my plan was to get a new Dual G5 Powermac to replace my Dual G5 I have now
But if this specualtion is anywhere near the mark, I'll likely keep my Dual G5 and slowly max the ram out over time.
And If Powerbooks are out by the end of '06, I'll probably get one of those. Can you imagine the specs? Can you imagine how beautiful that sucker is going to be? With all or most of the thermal issues tackled, we should be seeing some incredibly beautiful, incredibly inspired Industrial Design coming from Apple. They've got a great deal of nay-sayers to quiet.
I'll take a 15" PB with an HD screen, Merom Dual Core cpu, 2 gigs of ram, and a 120 gig HD - all encased in a beautiful little box, thanks!
pont said:Since this artical has was posted on slashdot yesterday i have seen it mentoned on this fourm ~4 times
and could someone please explain how a MacOSX running on intel will
suddenly dethrown microsoft. Unless apple propose to give you a choice of hardware to run it on (not just apple boxes) it will be pritty much the same as before for maket share.
Actually I'm thinking the opposite than since they will be running OS X on Intel that it is Apple that will be in trouble. No longer can you bring up superior hardware, it will be OS feature for OS feature. Overall, OS X is far superior but marketing can spin anything to mean anything they want for the general public. Be afraid, be very afraid.
sedarby said:Actually I'm thinking the opposite than since they will be running OS X on Intel that it is Apple that will be in trouble. No longer can you bring up superior hardware, it will be OS feature for OS feature. Overall, OS X is far superior but marketing can spin anything to mean anything they want for the general public. Be afraid, be very afraid.
Macs did not always contain superior hardware. For example, the graphic cards ( only optional )- hardly top of the line - for example, the ones we see in the iBooks, iMacs etc.
I wouldn't call G4's superior, either.
Macs will compete - OS v OS. PowerBooks will finally be able to compete with Intel hardware.
sedarby said:Actually I'm thinking the opposite than since they will be running OS X on Intel that it is Apple that will be in trouble. No longer can you bring up superior hardware, it will be OS feature for OS feature. Overall, OS X is far superior but marketing can spin anything to mean anything they want for the general public. Be afraid, be very afraid.
Well the thinking is that current PC hardware ain't all that hot because:
(1) Has to work with Windows.
(2) Windows has to work with it.
Which is to say, one reason Windows is so bloaty is that he has to work with loads of old stuff (e.g. parallel ports). One reason new PCs are kind of boring is that they can only run Windows.
Mactels will be tied to specific hardware (presumably same four or five slots as before: consumer laptop, consumer desktop, pro laptop, pro desktop, + mini, eMac and Xserv). Which is to say since it is working with only a limited set of hardware MacOS can optimize for that hardware. Additionally, since they're providing the OS and the Hardware they can use neat features of Intel chips that currently aren't supported by Windows (e.g. Virtualization technology).
]It would be great marketing to fanboys but...
It is based not on Intel's P4 but the CISC junkpile called PIII.
Pentium M for dummies
I've run the Pentium M. It's slow, UNRELIABLE, and a piece of junk.
I'm running one now beside my powerbook. You are correct sir! It is a piece of ****.
It is based not on Intel's P4 but the CISC junkpile called PIII.
Pentium M for dummies
I've run the Pentium M. It's slow, UNRELIABLE, and a piece of junk.
I'm running one now beside my powerbook. You are correct sir! It is a piece of ****.
*PORTING NEWS*
I know that this has little to do with this thread but I thought it may interest some of you out there.
I have had report that many small developers have already recompiled their software while at WWDC with little to no problems. Not the 'pulling teeth' task people thought it would be. This has to be good news.
Sorry for my interjection. You can get back to bitch slapping AMD and XP.
I know that this has little to do with this thread but I thought it may interest some of you out there.
I have had report that many small developers have already recompiled their software while at WWDC with little to no problems. Not the 'pulling teeth' task people thought it would be. This has to be good news.
Sorry for my interjection. You can get back to bitch slapping AMD and XP.
Of course, as has already been pointed out (maybe on this thread, maybe elsewhere), compilation is only a small part of any software release. The QA cycle is (or should be) longer than the initial development cycle, and supporting two different CPUs doubles the amount of QA needed, even if it all works flawlessly. So the costs for development on the Mac have increased.G.Kirby said:I know that this has little to do with this thread but I thought it may interest some of you out there.
I have had report that many small developers have already recompiled their software while at WWDC with little to no problems. Not the 'pulling teeth' task people thought it would be. This has to be good news.
Sorry for my interjection. You can get back to bitch slapping AMD and XP.
Apart from having to suffer AMD/Intel fanboism, that's my only concern.
Underbelly said:
I like Cringley and he's usually very good at connecting the dots in the technology landscape. But his batting average is far from 1000 when he really sticks his neck out like this - he will be the first to admit it.
He seems to rely heavily on the so-called "osborne effect," otherwise, what incentive would Apple have to sell that they didn't have during the G5 era and even further back? Apple, thanks to the iPod and swirl of glowing accolades for OS X has never been in a stronger position than that as of today, and it's current sales figures back that up. Sell just to fight the holy war against Microsoft? Cringley has written (correctly) in the past that the best way to compete against Microsoft is to basically ignore them. Cringley provided a long list of companies that failed in spectacular fashion when they tried to go toe to toe with Microsoft. When you do that, your playing Microsoft's game on their all to well-established turf and you will lose. Take your company and join all of the others that tried the same thing on the well-beaten trail of tears.
Look at the success of the iPod as an example. Apple wasn't in competition with Microsoft when the iPod was introduced, in fact, Microsoft wasn't even on the map. Apple had a vision, and they adhered to it to this very day, summarily ignoring what Microsoft could do, would do, or has already done. Now look at poor Microsoft. Their "music store" is virtually still-born approaching it's first year of existence, and they appear completely feckless about what to do next. Apple, on the other hand, has racked up an 82 percent market share. Moral of the story: Do what you do best, and ignore anything Microsoft says or does. Microsoft's achilles heel is that they are inherently a non-innovative company, and if you are, you have a marked advantage over them. However, the minute you announce (by word or action) the great jihad against Microsoft, you lose the innovation advantage as the FEAR, UNCERTAINTY AND DEATH juggernaut leaps into action, hitting the ground on all fours. Your volatile, microscopic market share versus the world-wide acceptance of Windows is suddenly bought into sharp, unrelenting focus. In the end, the evil empire wins, and your pitiful little rebellion against them is destroyed. And that's exactly what would happen to Apple. It's not 1984 anymore. It's the 21st century. Rise and shine.
In any event, here's why the "osborne effect" will never happen. Absolute worse case scenario is that Apple computer sales remain flat at their current levels, but I think they will continue to rise on Tiger's "tale" lol, once all the chatter about the Intel switch simmers down. First, recall that Apple's hardware tends to remain in service longer in the wild than does it's Wintel counterparts. It wasn't that long ago that Jobs himself lamented that there were still a lot of G3 users out there that Apple wanted to persuade upgrading to at least a G4 or G5. Today, Tiger will run on a Mac with a G3 cpu (not all, but you get the picture). Second, even with the Intel switch, Apple, as well as it's key strategic developers, has firmly positioned themselves for supporting PPC's on an ongoing basis until well into the next decade. Apple knows full well that the majority of it's installed base will be PPC-based for years. So Leopard, and at least it's next 10.6 successor, will be as compatible on your computer as Tiger is today. iLife 06, with all of it's whiz-bang improvements, will run like a top on a PPC based Mac. Upgrading your third party software? No problem. Updated PPC code will sit right next to the Intel code on any future updates for well into the next decade. And the so-called "Rosetta" technology will be there for the early Intel adopters, "just in case". It's an aggressive, well designed strategy that demonstrates Apple's commitment to staying in the game just as it has in the past with other transitions, and not a blueprint for selling out to Intel.
Apple apparently is going to introduce Intel processors with the mini and possibly soon as well with the aging (and technology starving, as far as the CPU goes) laptop line. The big iron (Powermacs and Xserves) will wait until "later." That's your first big hint that the "osborne effect" has been well accounted for. In the past, Apple has always introduced new technologies with great fanfare with the Powermac line, then that technology trickles down the product line. (And should have with the G5, but we all know that story.) But surprisingly it seems, not this time around. You should be wondering why...
Because this is what Apple will do. June 06 is far too long to wait for Intel updates, and Apple has already stated they have some *cough* amazing PPC products in the pipeline. The mac mini will likely be first up to bat, since it was introduced last January, and should be the first expected update. (Everything else has already gotten recent updates.) Apple could update the mini G4 CPU later this year, but they could just as easily pull a page from the eMac's upgrade history and get rid of the 1.2 ghz model. The 1.4 ghz model stands alone, with possibly adding a better graphics card, larger hard drive and superdrive as standard to sweeten the deal. If they also give a modest cut in the $399 price, it would still seem like a steal. By then, the buzz for Apple will have shifted back mostly to Tiger. And the mini is mostly designed as a trojan for casual Window's switchers, who are more motivated to get off the platform and onto something that "just works" rather than benching the CPU. The 1.4ghz G4 is still plenty powerful for the apps most mini users will run at that time. Want a faster, more feature filled mini for maybe just $299 or $350 that runs Tiger, iLife, and just about everything else you can throw at it? I think it would continue to sell at least at it's current threshold, because once again the majority of it's buyers are the ones least likely to care about what CPU is inside. That will tide the mini over for this year and into 06. Next year, it's the Intel mini, and all it needs inside is a CPU that offers at least a 20 percent performance increase over the pervious 1.4ghz G4. Somehow, I think Intel will be able to rise to that challenge, lol. And a 20 percent performance increase has been the norm for Apple's computer refresh cycles. If Intel beats the 20 percent figure, so much the better for Apple and fresh positive buzz for the mini.
The rest of the product line will likely follow a similar trend into 06. The laptops will either get a faster (maybe dual core?) G4s, or a consolidation of the line-up to offer more power and features at lower entry level prices, or a some exotic combination of the above. The Powermac's will limp to 3ghz and maybe a tad beyond that, but that still more than enough power/features/price to see them through the end of 06. And every model in the line-up will benefit from the new, as of yet unnoticed halo effect - the Tiger halo. Apple will be pumping Tiger for everything its worth over the coming year, and there is lot in Tiger to pump. The Intel guessing game will be relegated to geeks only.
But...what about the "osborne effect?" Recall that Apple never, ever discloses details in any manner, shape or form about future products. Even with the Intel announcement, it's still just as true. There have been no details from Apple about implementation of Intel in it's products, and there won't be any until they're introduced to the public. And that's exactly why Apple will update the Powermacs last, the flagship of the line. Because it will be huge. Intel (and don't forget Apple) will have had the time (at least into 07, if they need that long) to develop something than nobody would have predicted based on Intel's currently available information. Like the G5 before it, Apple will want to have a major surprise in store, and it's that CPU technology that will eventually trickle down to Apple's other models. The combination of groundbreaking Powermacs and the as of now mysterious Leopard could relegate Microsoft's "Longhorn" - the "bet the company" release of Windows according to Bill Gates - to a yawning exercise if it follows its currently scheduled date to market. So, who's buying what again? lol
Thats the Apple roadmap as I see it, Mr. Cringley. Forget about trying to predict what CPU is going to end up in the Powermac. Thats far too pedestrian an exercise for evaluating a company like Apple with a proven track record of consistent innovation and surprises, much less come to universal conclusions about. Better think different.
Examples of Unreliablie Wiki?
JoeConvert,
I'm no expert on computer processors, but as far as I can tell, the Wiki article only agrees with chatin by saying that the Pentium M is based on the P 3. I couldn't find anything negative about performance. So, I don't really see how it's "another nail in the wikipedia coffin." Can you think of any other articles that made you question Wiki's reliability?
joeconvert said:
JoeConvert,
I'm no expert on computer processors, but as far as I can tell, the Wiki article only agrees with chatin by saying that the Pentium M is based on the P 3. I couldn't find anything negative about performance. So, I don't really see how it's "another nail in the wikipedia coffin." Can you think of any other articles that made you question Wiki's reliability?
Mr Maui said:Is there any chance we can refer to the new Macs as Macs instead of Mactels or Macintels. It makes them sound cheap and sarcastic like the Wintel label. My Macs will always be Macs regardless of the chip inside.
I second that, the phrase Mactel is hideous at best. For all that the platform is going through Intel better deliver.