Slashdot Mirror
Apple Planning Intel iBook Debut for January?
axonis writes "Apple is planning to release its first entry-level iBook laptops with Intel processors next January at Macworld Expo in San Francisco, highly reliable sources have confirmed to Think Secret." From the article: "Apple will almost certainly tap Intel's forthcoming Yonah processor for the iBooks, a successor to the company's Pentium M. It is unknown whether Apple will go with a dual-core version of the processor, slated for release in January, or a single-core version, which Intel announced in August would be delivered shortly after the dual-core version. The dual-core Yonah chip could very likely deliver performance greater than Apple's current G4-based PowerBooks."
"enough". Apple's been silently distrubiting updates as fat-binaries. It's very likely you won't notice, or even care for that matter, but I'm sure in a few [weeks/months/years] someone will have a binary stripper to remove the unnessicary part of the Universal Binary.
I think Apple just gave mid summer as an estimate to give the developers of 3rd party applications more time, as well as themselves if they needed it. Now they've figured out that the developers were quick to transition, everyone's bitting at the chops, and delaying it any longer seems to be a bad idea. Can't wait to get my hands on one.
"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is." G.W.Bush
I'm sure in a few [weeks/months/years] someone will have a binary stripper to remove the unnessicary part of the Universal Binary.
/usr/bin/lipo on any Mac OS X machine.
This has been in NeXTSTEP and Mac OS X all along. See
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
The highly reliable sources ThinkSecret often cites, most of the time produces so, so predictions.
Statments like "The dual-core Yonah chip could very likely deliver performance greater than Apple's current G4-based PowerBooks." does not sound too reliable. Why on earth would Apple intro systems with less performance than current models -- and I am not just thinking in terms of real processsor performance, but perceived system performance? They'd be the laughing stock of the industry. Unless they can put a system into the market that gives a noticeable better performance than what is possible with the G4, they will wait. Apple does not want the Intel experience to be mediocre. They want it to be top notch.
I find the predictions AppleInsider made last Friday to be more sensible, but I am still not sure if Apple would put the 32-bit Yonah into the iMac, as it may be seen as a step back from the 64-bit G5. I've commented on Apple's 64-bit roadmap and how to get there, mentioning av 64-bit Yonah, which is really the Merom. Perhaps Intel may have been able to bring this chip forward in time from fall 2006 to this spring, enabling Apple to go straight to 64-bit from day one.
The future is in beta
Where are you getting these "quite clear" positions?
Adobe was prominently on stage for the announcement of Apple moving to Intel and promised their eventual support. They did say that there was going to be a bit of work because they were still a PowerPlant house, but they were going to make the transition.
And that does not take into account the recent announcement from Metroworks that they were going to make a PowerPlant Mac/Intel version of their compiler after all. That could make the transition much easier. I would still rather that they moved over to an XCode project, but that might not be convenient with the requirement that this build quickly on both MacOS X and Windows from the same codebase (it is of course possible... I am talking about convenient).
Now Apple has released a few great products recently, and in the video space they are directly competing with Adobe... although most people would say that they are more accurately competing against Avid... But in the image space: I can't think of any product that Adobe makes that compares with Aperture... unless you talk about the image browser in Photoshop, and that is really stretching things. Aperture is going to sell more copies of Photoshop.
If this rumour proves true, it will be an interesting shift for Apple. Apple has traditionally kept its consumer machines at much lower performance levels than its pro machines. The notable exception being the current G5 iMac vs G4 PowerBook. But I can't remember a time when the iBooks would outpace the PowerBooks (or the iMacs outpace the PowerMacs). Yet with the Intel upgrade (as TFA said), a Yonah-iBook would likely perform more strongly (on universal binary apps anyway) than a G4 PowerBook. Interesting times indeed....
"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one " -Albert Einstein
TPM or TCM would be used to prevent you from running OS X on non-Apple hardware, so it wouldn't negatively impact you if you're running Apple hardware. You are free to run Linux or Windows on an Intel Mac, as has been publically stated by Phil Schiller, Apple's VP of Marketing.
You want to run Photoshop on an iBook?
I run Photoshop all the time on the current iBook.
Some filters take a few extra seconds to apply, but it works great.
No need to be all bold-type incredulous, sport.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
I'm sure they've run out of ways to squeeze more out of it, though.
The "cue the foo posts in 3, 2, 1..." posts will commence with no subsequent foo posts in 3, 2, 1...
The dual-core Yonah chip could very likely deliver performance greater than Apple's current G4-based PowerBooks.
Could very likely? That's quite a bit of uncertainty.
The Pentium M is roughly performance-equivalent to an Athlon64 of the same clockspeed (The PM is still a bit weak in the multimedia department, but Yonah is expected to fix that. The statement holds true for gaming, at least). Assuming that the dual core Yonah ships at the same max speed as current Dothan processors, that means 2.26GHz. That's roughly an Athlon64 X2 4400+. The PowerBook ships with a single 1.67GHz G4. I think it is safe to say that the processor "definately destroys performance-wise" rather than "could very likely deliver performance greater than".
"Why buy an Intel Mac?"
Err... because it's a Mac, is faster than a G4 Mac, but still runs OS X? I *like* OS X, but that's not what "zealot" means. Nor does "zealot" mean "someone who disagrees with Nagora." "Zealot" means "A person who is fanatical and uncompromising in their religious, political, or other ideals." Interestingly, you and I can be on opposite sides of the "Is OS X better than Windows?" question and still both be right. Those are "opinions", you see. To each cat his own rat, and all that.
Oh, and here's another definition for you: "Troll: 2) Informal computing. A message or posting on the internet designed to provoke an indignant response in the reader." My opinion is that you got downmodded, not by zealots, but for posting a troll. HAND.
Ce n'est pas un vrai mouvement de robot!
I think what they are trying to say is that the intel system, running emulation, might deliver performance greater than a G4 running native apps.
'Course... that's a wild ass guess.
But, it "fits" the facts a lot better.
Especially when you consider that right off the bat there will still be a lot of non-native software. People really will expect to install a lot of their *current* software.
--Phillip
Can you say BIRTH TAX
I think the main difference between Suspend and Sleep is the power usage. Macs use only a few % of power per day in sleep, so it's perfectly realistic to *never* turn off your laptop, even if you go for a week without using it. Whereas my friends' Dells use so much power in Suspend mode that if they leave it for more than a day they risk draining the battery. I also haven't seen wake-on-open (vs. wake-on-keypress), but that must due to cheap manufacturers' implementations. I can't imagine there's a difference between the two at a BIOS level.
I don't know if the difference in power usage represents something fundamental, or just different designers being more or less careful with power management. I don't really doubt that Apple will be just as careful with their Intel designs as they have been with their PowePC ones.
Actually Mac OS X does have a "Hibernate" mode, it's called "Safe Sleep"
o w-to-safe-sleep-your-mac/
It's fully enabled on the newest PowerBooks but you need to fiddle around a bit to get it enabled on previous models.
Here's a guide on how to do it: http://www.andrewescobar.com/archive/2005/11/11/h
Sapere aude!