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."
How many programs have "fat" binaries, with intel versions?
"Oh, and one more thing...That whole thing about switching to Intel was just a joke..."
Be a real patriot: Question authority. Think for yourself. Formulate your own conclusions.
Well, it should be no surprise, after that high-end Apple laptops improved *not* *one* *hertz* on the high end since January. Still this is pretty big news, since the PowerBook has had to advance in every other area in the interrim--backlit keyboards, scrolling trackpad, now high-density displays.
But it will be nice to again have a PowerBook that is actually somewhat fast.
Leaked Picture link here!
Surely if Apple announces an Intel based iBook, an Intel based Mac Mini will be there too? Or will follow very shortly.
Sam
Does that mean the next january which will occur or the next one after 'this' january. The first seems way too soon (three months!).
God I hate this particular phrase. It confuses me almost every time. I wish we had some clearer system where we would just say a number before the month/day to indicate how many away it was for small numbers. So instead of next january meaning the first january after this we could say 'the first january' and the next one would be 'the second january'.
So could someone please reply and tell me which it is. Also wouldn't hurt to add it in the story.
If you liked this thought maybe you would find my blog nice too:
Although I'm very (VERY) interested to see what Apple's design crew comes up with for these Intel-based machines, the real drama is going to involve watching OS X make its way into the wild, whacky world of x86 commodity hardware. Surely this is going to be one of the most sought-after hacks in the world after the first final release of OS X Intel hits the streets. God help whichever Apple lackey is within 100 yards of SJ when this happens.
...of Edinburgh pub.
"I don't see a need for Apple to go much below $1,000 unless they are going to offer a really low-end iBook with really low-end features," he said. "Cheap (Windows-based) notebooks are just that. Cheap. They have low-resolution, small hard drives, little memory. Apple doesn't need to compete their. They could keep the price the same and offer more. If you're going to lower prices (on iBooks), then lower them on the high end, and add a third, higher-end model that comes at $1,299."
Spelling nazis rejoice!
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
I still think people are buying the iBooks for the coolness, because it is the far better looking than your boring corporate compaq/dell laptops. However for those who don't mind spending the money, nothing beats the custom color beefed up Hypersonic laptop line. http://www.hypersonic-pc.com/
I expect Apple to get 100% compatibility via Rosetta quite easily. the only difference is speed - MS needs to run games in "real time" whereas computer programs being a bit slower isn't too much of a problem.
I just bought my PowerBook G4. But then again, it runs all my current software/games flawlessly. As much as I love my Macs, any time I've bought first gen products they've been sub-par. I think I'll wait a year or two so that there's a good enough collection of native software available.
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
Apple says they'll deliver something by a particular date, and instead deliver it six months earlier. That's very cool. Microsoft should learn from them and stop promising and then failing to deliver products on time.
"Greater than current G4" isn't setting the bar very high, especially if they go with the dual core chip (which would certainly be nice). I hesitate to risk a flamewar by asserting that current Pentium-M's are already a lot faster than the G4, but they are, so I will.
"The dual-core Yonah chip could very likely deliver performance greater than Apple's current G4-based PowerBooks."
Could? The dual-core Yonah's had better deliver performance better than any of Apple's current laptop lineup. One of the main reasons for the switch to Intel is the sad state of Motorola and IBM's low-power chips.
Other places are indicating that Apple will release the Powerbooks first because the higher performance CPUs are what Intel has available now, with the lower performance ones coming in the Spring.
Not news. Merely rumor.
- Jasen.
Leaked photos of the upcoming P-p-p-powerbook
How does a 7-person democracy cut a pie? Into 4 pieces.
...how they implement the instant-on stuff. None of this "hibernation" crap, when I open my powerbook, I start working. Done and done.
And it it can be easily implemented on Intel arch, why hasn't it been done?
The announcement date (Jan 2006 at Macworld San Francisco) makes sense: January sales figures are flatline.
Apple, usually makes new product announcements on January:
* 2005 - iPod Shuffle
* 2004 - iPod Mini / XServe G5
* 2003 - 20" Cinema Display + New Powermacs + New iBooks + iLife + Safari + Final Cut Express
* 2002 - New iMacs + 12" iBook + iPhoto + OSX installed by default on new machines...
* 2001 - Titanium iBook.
mootion.com - Never underestimate VCs stock options (was: Web 2.0)
Great! Good for you! Please let me know when you've hacked the Gimp into Photoshop, or Scribus into InDesign. Sure I'm sarcastic, but you get my point.
So a dual core new offering might be as good as a 2+ year old G4??
Is the Pentium M really that bad? Is the G4 really THAT good?
People who use the word 'boxen' don't get a vote on what computer I buy.
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
...and introduce a light weight touch screen laptop that combines some of the concepts of MiT's sub $100 machine, a Sony VAIO (or is it VIAO?), the current iBook build quality and a swivel screen. An Inkwell based pen driven interface would be far more intuitive and offers a natural instinctive GUI - just what children need to stimulate their imaginations. The whole paradigm of using a mouse, trackpad and keyboard is so counter productive, except for specific desktop and power user applications. Bring on the PowerPad! Intel inside, Inkwell outside!
O'WONDERWe're working on it.
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.
When you buy an Intel PowerBook, you're buying into the most evil technology imaginable
Funny, I can imagine much more evil technology than an Intel Powerbook,
Starting off with something along the lines of a gigantic painful death ray that dissolves your skin first
then fries your nerve endings before it finally boils your blood and liquifies your bones, thereby killing you
until you die to death. Now THATS evil.
Even a laptop that shocks you when you make spelling errors seems more evil to me, Or a Gateway 2000,
Or that little wiggly controller on IBM thinkpads, the mousenipple or whatever it is called... Folks, me and my
imagination have all day to out evil the Intel Powerbook. Apparently you, Sir, have underestimated me in your
hyperbolic haste.
music lover since 1969
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".
I'm ECSTATIC about this news - as long as the rumored ability to dual-boot Windows XP is a reality.
I can easily justify the purchase of an iBook as a desktop replacement for my boss if the cost stays at around $1000. For this price, he'd be "buying" my current system as a replacement/"new" PC for others in the company as well as a portable system for me to use at home. However, this is only feasible in my environment if the machine can dual-boot Windows. I am a current Mac user and will be able to use OS X for its UNIX-y goodness but will have to fight Redmond's best minds from time to time as I use several tools that are only available in Microsoft-land. suspect that I'm not alone and that there is a sizeable market for users like me with bosses like mine.
I can't help but think that since Apple is a hardware company - and not a software company - that they don't care what we do with the hardware once we have it in our grubby little mitts.
For supposedly being the "graphics" platform the resolutions of the Apple laptops have always been pathetically low. I was running 1920x1200 on my 15.4" laptop, and now I'm running 1280x768 on my 10.6". 1024x768 on a 12.1" doesn't cut it, and it REALLY doesn't cut it on a 14.1".
I just bought an Access Virus TI Desktop and the fact that you can use it as an audio and MIDI interface as well as a knob box with direct access with a VST plugin is making me seriously consider moving away from Linux after five years... I can't stand MacOS, but I can't stand dualbooting even more.
sig.
See here's the thing. This is software, not the Civil Rights Movement. I'm not going to deprive myself of an enjoyable and easy to use computing experience provided by Apple (or even Microsoft) just so I can be "free" with "Only If Your Time Is Worthless Linux".
Have fun not having fun.
Mac OS X and Windows XP working side by side to fight back the night.
"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!
The current Mac GUI stinks. I have to use it occassionaly for work and it drives me nuts with frustration. Just moving the windows about or (much worse) resizing them is a nightmare on a large screen. The Dock is far too limited, the menu bar too far away, the general layout of the control panel, to say nothing of the madness which is the file tree with its "sometimes I'm Unix, sometimes I'm MacOS" tangle. I hate it.
To give you professional advice, it appears your mastery of moving the mouse cursor across the screen and clicking leaves something to be desired. May I suggest buying a lubricated mouse pad for easier motion til your arm gets strong enough to drag items into the dock on a regular basis.
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
You're right, it's not *THE* civil rights movement, the one with MLK and all that, but it is definitely *A* civil rights movement. Just because you don't care doesn't mean it's not important.
;-)
No, it's a commercial right or property rights movement. Civil rights is about the rights a person has as a citizen of a country. Note the word "civil".
..what's the truth here? Are Intel processors more powerful than Motorola/IBM?
The truth is that Apple told the truth but that it was cleverly phrased by marketing people so that consumers, and/or more importantly zealots, would misinterpret it. The truth is that:
1. Historically and in general a PowerPC CPU is 25-35% faster than an Intel CPU of the *same* clockrate. Apple used phrases like "up to twice as fast" and this was true, you could find a specialized app that greatly benefitted from the RISC architecture of the PowerPC and get to 2X. However clockrates were not the same, clockrate is not the perfect measurement but it does matter.
2. Apple was disingenuous in some of it's comparisons, the comparisons were "rigged" to a certain degree. The ByteMarks comparison where they used an old 486 version on a Pentium CPU. Fudged SPEC comparisons. Gcc "leveling the playing field" when gcc x86 is known to be weaker than gcc ppc and better x86 compilers are used for commercial x86 apps. Apple didn't lie, they did fully disclose all this in the "small print" but few had the technical sophistication to understand. While unacceptable in a paper presented to a scientific journal it was all pretty standard stuff for maketing literature and advertisements.
At least since the iMac, probably since the 6500 (the first personal computer- x86 OR PPC -to break 300mhz), Apple has ALWAYS lead the jump to new and improved technology and aesthetics with the consumer hardware. The pro hardware comes along later - learning from flaws in the revA consumer stuff and fitting in new features in the process.
There's also a good chunk of mac fanboi out there that are all OMG!!!!! GLEEEEE!!!!!!!! when Apple releases new kit. We're talking the kind of people that bought an iMac, then turned right around and bought a blue-and-white G3 when those were released.
Also... the big advantage of the mini is you're not bound to a specific keyboard and monitor. Much as I love my iBook, the keyboard blows compared to my old powerbook and a 12" display makes my face hurt (it's nice but it's too damned small for my eyes) - the mini lets me use my existing pile of mid-90s Apple CRTs (DVI -> VGA adapter with a VGA -> 25-pin Mac adapter plugged into that, FOR THE WIN!) and my existing keyboards and input devices. It's certainly true that if you're starting fresh (say, just out of high school), a notebook is a much better bang for the buck... but if your house is the Macintosh equivalent of an elephant graveyard, the mini fits into that magic slot of "slightly more expensive than a processor upgrade."