Slashdot Mirror
New Apples Next Week
Vicissidude writes "CNN/Money reports: 'Apple may be gearing up to unveil a new slate of mini-Macs and may also release updated versions of its popular iBook laptop computers as early as next Tuesday, according to unconfirmed reports on a Web site that tracks Apple.' The Web site Think Secret reported three new Mac mini and two new iBook part numbers have appeared in Apple's retail database, indicating that new models are imminent. Apple would neither confirm nor deny the reports. The new mini models will be priced at $499, $599 and $699, with new iBooks priced at $999 and $1,299, according to the original story at Think Secret."
Is what Fox-style journalism has done to the news world? CNN no longer does its own reporting and relies on rumors posted on the web site of a university student? Granted, Think Secret has been amazing accurate, so much so that Apple has sued them, but it is after all a rumor site run by a university student. CNN pays reporters to investigate stories, they shouldn't be reporting them from rumor sites without additional facts to corroborate them.
Apple should be pushing the minimal spec upwards, not stripping everything off so that it can get it's headlines saying *Mac's are now affordable*
I would like to offer a descenting opinion. I feel that Apple does a great job of specing out systems with standard features that make them relevant years from now. Making a 512MB RAM standard across the line, except the mini, is one example. Standard USB 2, Firewire, Bluetooth, etc are others.
But if every Mac came optioned up with Superdrives and the like, there would be no 'entry level' model. My iMac G5 has Bluetooth and Airport Express standard. I don't use those at all. but I paid for them. It also has a Superdrive I didn't need but have used twice for fun so I'm glad I have it. Still, it would have been nice to save $200, or nearly 15%, and not gotten those options.
Just like people think Apple is the BMW of computers, BMW still has options for their luxury cars.
Where Apple does falter in my opinion is in the video cards. If they are going to make eMacs, iMacs, and Mac minis (as well as iBooks and PBs) without upgradable video chipsets, then they need to put in something that is above par for he rest of the system. How sad to have otherwise snappy system performance slowed down by a poor graphics card. I would gladly trade the forementioned wireless access innards for a better graphics chipset.
I only came here to do two things; kick some ass, and drink some beer...looks like we're almost out of beer.
You guys don't really know your Apple history, do you? When Apple made the transition from 68k to PPC, every application imaginable was released in fat binaries for several years afterwards, meaning that people running both processors were fully supported throughout the transition. When Apple moved to OSX, OS9 users were given ample time to make the switch, with measures such as the Carbon libs and Classic mode easing the way.
Face it - Apple has a history of supporting their legacy customers for as long as is technically and financially feasable, and the developers have generally gone along with this. Your imagined examples of non-support notwithstanding, there's just no evidence to suggest that either Apple or its developers would just suddenly drop PPC support the moment the first Intel Mac rolls off the production line. As has been stated before, there's going to be a majority of PPC Macs in users' hands for at least the next five to six years. No software company in their right mind would just abandon that market for convenience sake.
Calm down. A PPC iBook purchased this year will suit you perfectly well for the next five years. That being said, you can always wait another year for the latest and greatest. Then you could wait another year for the latest and greatest. Then you could wait another year for the latest and greatest. Then you could wait another year for the latest and greatest. Then you could wait another year for the latest and greatest...
There they were, sitting in the van with all those dials, and the cat was dead. -V. Marchetti, CIA
I have a machine I purchased in early 2002. It replaced a machine I bought in 1997. That machine from 1997 continued to run until I sold it 3rd party in 2004, and I am sure it is still running today. If you wanted to you could run OS X on it, however it requires a 3rd party hack. But OS 9 for someone who hasn't had need to upgrade their software (much like you haven't had need of upgrading your OS) still works just fine. In fact I often wished that I still had that machine for a certain software that I still haven't found a real replacement for yet (and will not work in classic).
As a matter of fact I purchased one of the first PPC machines back in 1995, and it is still in use by the person I sold it to. That is definitely 10 years old, but no it does not run OS X, but the tools that person uses were not upgraded enough for X for it to make sense for him to upgrade.
The only reason I dream of upgrading today is simply for portability. I would love to have a laptop, and while newer machines can do tasks with a bit more spunk than my current machine, it certainly does handle what I need it to do.
Shawn's Tech Articles