Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 10th Jan 2006 18:45 UTC
Apple Apple's Steve Jobs has announced several new products today during his keynote at MacWorld (photos). After the usual chit-chat about the success of the retail stores and iTunes, Jobs got to the meat of the matter. He announced an FM-tuner with remote-control for the Nano/Video iPod. Read more for the really interesting stuff!
Order by: Score:
Intel iMac !
by Tyr. on Tue 10th Jan 2006 18:51 UTC
Tyr.
Member since:
2005-07-06

Damn I'm just getting my end of year bonus and that's mighty tempting ! Damn you Apple. Thank god it's not the mini though that would have been a must buy for me.

The new laptop is just way to expensive, especially when it'll get to europe, Apple stuff always seems to be more expensive here.

Edited 2006-01-10 18:53

Reply Score: 1

RE: Intel iMac !
by modmans2ndcoming on Tue 10th Jan 2006 19:10 UTC in reply to "Intel iMac !"
modmans2ndcoming Member since:
2005-11-09

how much is a Dell laptop with an intel core duo and built in camera?

Reply Score: 1

RE: Intel iMac !
by Kroc on Tue 10th Jan 2006 20:21 UTC in reply to "Intel iMac !"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

Expensive!? Not at all. I paid £1500 for a top end VAIO at the end of 2003. The best specced machine then with 2.8GHz, 512MB, 60GB, 15" x-black screen and GeForce 6200 Go. The macbook is £1429 with dual core chip, 1" thin, camera built in, insane graphics card capable of playing Doom III (My VAIO couldn't), 512MB, 100GB and likely excellent build quality.

You're confusing "a lot of money" with "expensive". For what you get, it's positively cheap. If you don't have £1429, it costs too much for you, that doesn't make it overpriced at all.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Intel iMac !
by Get a Life on Tue 10th Jan 2006 20:29 UTC in reply to "RE: Intel iMac !"
Get a Life Member since:
2006-01-01

There's a slight distinction between being expensive and whether something is a good value or not. 2-2.5k for a laptop may very well seem "too expensive" when he might be looking for an iBook-replacement.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Intel iMac !
by Tom K on Tue 10th Jan 2006 20:34 UTC in reply to "RE: Intel iMac !"
Tom K Member since:
2005-07-06

You won't play Doom 3 on that laptop, trust me. A desktop X1600 XT only pulls about 60 FPS in Doom 3 at 1024x768 low details. Factor in the following:

- Mobility version of card
- Higher-resolution screen
- OS X

And chances are you'll get pretty crappy performance.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Intel iMac !
by kwanbis on Tue 10th Jan 2006 21:01 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Intel iMac !"
kwanbis Member since:
2005-07-06

even if they can pull half that, it would be playable.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Intel iMac !
by Tom K on Tue 10th Jan 2006 21:19 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Intel iMac !"
Tom K Member since:
2005-07-06

Not in any heavier-action scenes. Doom 3 is like that.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Intel iMac !
by ma_d on Tue 10th Jan 2006 22:35 UTC in reply to "RE: Intel iMac !"
ma_d Member since:
2005-06-29

I think he means it's costly. Not expensive. And, at $2K, it is costly.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Intel iMac !
by Kroc on Wed 11th Jan 2006 08:55 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Intel iMac !"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

If you think you have it hard, try living in Europe. For a 2K$ machine I have to pay the equivilent of $2,513. And that's just the lower model. The higher model is the equivilent of $3,128!

Reply Score: 1

The price CHANGED during the last hours
by BlackJack75 on Wed 11th Jan 2006 00:51 UTC in reply to "Intel iMac !"
BlackJack75 Member since:
2005-08-29

When I first looked on apple.ch the price on the picture said macbook started at 3600 swiss francs. That looked horrendous because 2000$ = 2561 swiss francs. There were 1000 swiss francs (780 USD) more expensive here! I was getting a bit furious.

Now I just looked again and the picture *changed*! It now starts at 2999 swiss francs (2340 USD), which considering some local taxes and the fact that the swiss always like to pay a bit more is ... let's say reasonable.

Also the french apple.fr changed from 2399 Euros to 2149 Euros ... still nearly 2600 USD but the french have a huge VAT (18.6% versus 7.6% here).

Reply Score: 1

bogomipz Member since:
2005-07-11

All I can say is lucky you. Over here, apple.no shows a price tag of NOK 18.490,- for the cheaper macbook. That's about USD 2800, including our unbeatable 25% VAT.

Reply Score: 1

WZot Member since:
2005-07-06

/signed

Reply Score: 1

Whoa
by rayiner on Tue 10th Jan 2006 18:52 UTC
rayiner
Member since:
2005-07-06

I didn't see the MacBook thing coming, but several people did predict a merging of the lines. The new iMac looks great. I bet PowerMac G5 owners are a bit jealous right now. 3x faster, geez...

Reply Score: 1

RE: Whoa
by Tyr. on Tue 10th Jan 2006 18:59 UTC in reply to "Whoa"
Tyr. Member since:
2005-07-06

And dual core ! How delicious is that ?
For a performance overview of the new Intel Core Duo chip see : http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2648&p=1

"We continue to see that the Core Duo can offer, clock for clock, overall performance identical to that of AMD's Athlon 64 X2 - without the use of an on-die memory controller. The only remaining exception at this point appears to be 3D games, where the Athlon 64 X2 continues to do quite well, most likely due to its on-die memory controller."

Reply Score: 1

RE: Whoa
by protagonist on Tue 10th Jan 2006 23:46 UTC in reply to "Whoa"
protagonist Member since:
2005-07-06

I have a dual processor G5 and I am not a bit jealous. By the time I am ready to replace it early next year the Intel Mac Dual Duals will be out for the G5. Four is much better that 2. :-)

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Whoa
by rayiner on Wed 11th Jan 2006 00:04 UTC in reply to "RE: Whoa"
rayiner Member since:
2005-07-06

The fact that for most general-purpose code, Apple's fastest computer is now an iMac doesn't bother you?

Reply Score: 1

Interesting
by rayiner on Tue 10th Jan 2006 18:55 UTC
rayiner
Member since:
2005-07-06

2GHz Yonah in the top end iMac? For $1700? Nice!

Reply Score: 1

MacBook Battery Life?
by FreakyT on Tue 10th Jan 2006 18:58 UTC
FreakyT
Member since:
2005-07-17

The new MacBook looks interesting...though I'm wondering how well its battery life stacks up against the G4 versions; my iBook's battery life is still better than almost any PC laptop!

And I find that magnetic power plug amusing, especially considering that my iBook's power adaptor broke once when my dog tripped over it. (They mention this as the key advantage of the new connector at http://www.apple.com/macbookpro/)

Reply Score: 1

What's inside
by JLF65 on Tue 10th Jan 2006 18:58 UTC
JLF65
Member since:
2005-07-06

If you check what's inside, you'll see the ONLY thing that changed was they are using the dual core Yonah in place of the G5. Every other spec is still the same.

http://www.apple.com/imac/whatsinside.html

Reply Score: 1

RE: What's inside
by aaronb on Tue 10th Jan 2006 19:13 UTC in reply to "What's inside"
aaronb Member since:
2005-07-06

This is not true.

It has an ATI x1600 GFX card which is much better than the x600.

Way to go apple.

Reply Score: 1

RE: What's inside
by raxrat on Tue 10th Jan 2006 19:23 UTC in reply to "What's inside"
raxrat Member since:
2006-01-05

Almost true, firewire 800 is gone. But who's got any devices for that anyway?

Reply Score: 1

RE
by Kroc on Tue 10th Jan 2006 18:59 UTC
Kroc
Member since:
2005-11-10

I hope UK availability comes quick! >w<

Reply Score: 1

RE
by spook on Tue 10th Jan 2006 19:05 UTC in reply to "RE"
spook Member since:
2006-01-09

Its on the website now

£1,429.00

or

£1,779.00


hhmmm, last one is a bit expensive but still tempting

Reply Score: 1

RE
by Kroc on Tue 10th Jan 2006 19:35 UTC in reply to "RE"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

I'm worried about time availability. I've got a £1700 insurance voucher that expires 28th Feb and I have to get it from Dixons or PCWorld Business. Gah, if I miss out on this machine I'll go spare.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Kcoc
by spook on Tue 10th Jan 2006 19:40 UTC in reply to "RE"
spook Member since:
2006-01-09

If you have it on order but can't arrive before the 28th Feb surly that will satisfy the terms and conditions, I mean its not like its your fault

They are available to order from apple, why will they care if you don't if you get it a month later then you paid for it?

Reply Score: 1

Of Course...
by swlaird on Tue 10th Jan 2006 19:04 UTC
swlaird
Member since:
2005-07-06

Ya think they'd exchange the iMac G5 I bought my wife for Christmas?

Reply Score: 1

RE: Of Course...
by BlackJack75 on Wed 11th Jan 2006 00:22 UTC in reply to "Of Course..."
BlackJack75 Member since:
2005-08-29

I think you'd have more luck getting your wife exchanged :-) Seriously I think there's a delay during which you can exchange but it's been more than three weeks since christmas so probably too late.

I for one am still waiting for the nano I got for christmas...

Reply Score: 1

Magnetic?
by DigitalAxis on Tue 10th Jan 2006 19:05 UTC
DigitalAxis
Member since:
2005-08-28

A magnetic power connector? I hope their batteries are good, because if one ends up like my laptop with short battery life, before the person knows they're disconnected their system will start powering down...

Still, it does sound a bit less damaging than tripping over a cord. And... it looks like they're using an Apple-stylized Intel logo, so no garish blue and orange on their machines. I suppose that's a small relief to someone.

Still no Ogg Vorbis for the iPod... then again, I'm in the minority and it's probably not in Apple's best interests to support something they can't control.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Magnetic?
by modmans2ndcoming on Tue 10th Jan 2006 19:13 UTC in reply to "Magnetic?"
modmans2ndcoming Member since:
2005-11-09

you want to know how to extend your battery's lifetime?

stop draining it to nothing.

my iBook battery died and the dude I bought the new one from (3rd party and a larger capacity) said never let Lithium -ion batteries discharge all the way because it shortens their lifetime.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Magnetic?
by Get a Life on Tue 10th Jan 2006 20:04 UTC in reply to "RE: Magnetic?"
Get a Life Member since:
2006-01-01

Never fully discharging it is an exaggeration, but it is best to not perform full discharges on lithium-ion batteries because it expedites the natural deterioration of capacity. Lithium-ion batteries can also be rather fragile with respect to environmental conditions in general, so that's not the only way to kill them.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Magnetic?
by somebody on Wed 11th Jan 2006 20:24 UTC in reply to "RE: Magnetic?"
somebody Member since:
2005-07-07

Just a question? Why does Battery calibration utility always drain to nothing (if your comment would be true)?

With 20 or so notebooks I've had, I can say completely oposite. Only two bateries died on me, exactly those two I've almost never drained. It started with dropping from 5% to 0%. and then difference just got bigger and lifetime shorter.

Reply Score: 1

Ooh, and the Megahertz Myth is back!
by DigitalAxis on Tue 10th Jan 2006 19:07 UTC
DigitalAxis
Member since:
2005-08-28

I notice on their Core Duo page, the comparison is between a 2.1 Ghz PPC G5, and a 2 GHz Core Duo. Ha.

I also wonder how long it'll be before their more amusing caveats on the iMac page ("3. Provided you already have an Internet connection, of course.
4 Okay, so you might have to set up your iChat AV buddy list. And sign up for a free .Mac(2) trial account.") are removed. They got rid of the "Do not eat iPod Shuffle"...

Edited 2006-01-10 19:15

Reply Score: 1

modmans2ndcoming Member since:
2005-11-09

ummm... the MHz myth refers to the idea that MHz == performance.

you can still compare the performance of chips of a different architecture.

Reply Score: 1

DigitalAxis Member since:
2005-08-28

Exactly, and even though it's 100 Mhz slower, the Core Duo (by their benchmarks) is a far better performer than the G5. Still fighting the megahertz myth, for the moment at least.

Reply Score: 1

MikeGA Member since:
2005-07-22

Hardly surprising that's a better performer - 2 chips versus one!

Reply Score: 1

rayiner Member since:
2005-07-06

What's surprising isn't that its better (that's expected), but by how much its better. Intel's laptop CPU beats IBM's workstation CPU by an enormous margin, even on a per-clock basis. SPECint_rate scales very well with the number of cores, so if it had been a 1.9x speedup, that would have been quite expected. But 3.2x? That's something else entirely.

Reply Score: 1

kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

True, but at the same time, they're also saying in their advertisements (and on their site), "hey, this is a great performer, look how well REAL WORLD applications run on it!" - thats all consumers care about, the actual performance of the applications they run.

Quite frankly, the average user couldn't give a donkeys diddle if it could run Ray Tracer .01 second faster or slower, or whether some obscure compressor does something faster or slower.

What consumers want to know, "will those rocky my socks off" - and from what it seems, yes, they'll have to purchase a new pair (of socks).

Reply Score: 2

rayiner Member since:
2005-07-06

The SPECint_rate score for the G5 is comical. The 2.0 GHz dual-core Yonah is 3.2x faster, meaning the G5 must've gotten a 10.2 (which jibes with the recorded scores for the PPC 970). That means Yonah is running 8.2 per core per GHz, and the G5 is running 4.9 per core per GHz. That's worse, per-clock, than a Xeon, an Athlon XP, or even an UltraSPARC or the orignal Itanium! In fact, its only barely faster than a regular Pentium 4, and the P4 at least has an enormous clockspeed advantage! It's now quite obvious why developers reported that their Intel dev machines were much faster than even the G5 duals --- they were!

Reply Score: 3

Pasha Member since:
2005-07-06

Yes. And so tecno-babble about PPC superiority goes to hell finally. Now it's time to benchmark on market standards. I cannot wait to see :
a) It Windowz can be installed on it and run
b) Linux should work out of the box, but kernel guys will keep up shortly
c) a three boot system, to benchmark

Reply Score: 1

TomB7 Member since:
2006-01-03

Ouch! Redmond will be embaressed even BEFORE CPU-hogging Vista sees the light of day!

Reply Score: 1

PlatformAgnostic Member since:
2006-01-02

Doubtful... Windows will do better on multiproc machines than Mac OS X because it has finer-grained locking and is fully preemptible, which Mac OS is not. Until relatively recently, OS X was governed by a rather small number of large locks: http://developer.apple.com/technotes/tn/tn2028.html#MacOSXKernelThr...


OS X might have some advantages over Vista, but it's Kernel is not likely to be one of them. NT is pretty hard to beat.

Reply Score: 4

Sucker.
by Adam S on Tue 10th Jan 2006 19:09 UTC
Adam S
Member since:
2005-04-01

Well, I got mine and I'm a lot poorer. Looks like I'll be selling my ibook in a few weeks.

Reply Score: 5

New Graphic Cards
by Maxman on Tue 10th Jan 2006 19:10 UTC
Maxman
Member since:
2006-01-08

Unreal! I can't believe the GPU's they are shipping with these things. This is so un-Apple like. ( ATI Radeon X1600 with 128/256 DDR3 memory ) They are going to sell a ton of computers this year.

Reply Score: 1

RE: New Graphic Cards
by dr_gonzo on Tue 10th Jan 2006 20:17 UTC in reply to "New Graphic Cards"
dr_gonzo Member since:
2005-07-06

Yeah, I think that the switch to Intel will be a huge boon to the GPUs that will be going into the Macs now. I'm not too well up on this kind of stuff but apparently, ATI used to underclock their video cards for the Macs so they would get a better yield. It was also more expensive to make a graphics card for PPC than x86 because it was such a smaller market and they would also have to be flashed so they would be PPC compatible. Now there's a level playing field for Macs because the graphics cards that go into them are the exact same as the ones that go into all x86 PCs.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: New Graphic Cards
by MikeGA on Tue 10th Jan 2006 21:54 UTC in reply to "RE: New Graphic Cards"
MikeGA Member since:
2005-07-22

Exactly. To me, that seems the single biggest advantage of switching to Intel.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: New Graphic Cards
by Wes Felter on Wed 11th Jan 2006 00:13 UTC in reply to "RE: New Graphic Cards"
Wes Felter Member since:
2005-11-15

Mactel graphics cards may not be exactly the same as PC ones, because Mac use EFI instead of legacy BIOS. Thus the cards may need an EFI boot ROM.

Reply Score: 2

RE: New Graphic Cards
by Get a Life on Tue 10th Jan 2006 23:12 UTC in reply to "New Graphic Cards"
Get a Life Member since:
2006-01-01

The X1600 is not a high-performance offering.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/radeon-x1600_9.html
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/radeon-x1600_5.html

While an improvement on the dysmal offering in the iMac now, it's not anything too remarkable. It should provide decent performance with OS X eye candy, though.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: New Graphic Cards
by gizzlon on Tue 10th Jan 2006 23:25 UTC in reply to "RE: New Graphic Cards"
gizzlon Member since:
2005-12-18

"The X1600 is not a high-performance offering (..) While an improvement on the dysmal offering in the iMac now, it's not anything too remarkable"


You mean to tell me its not "screaming fast"? Could apple be lying?

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: New Graphic Cards
by BlackJack75 on Wed 11th Jan 2006 00:35 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: New Graphic Cards"
BlackJack75 Member since:
2005-08-29

While it could have been better in the iMac it is still amazing to get it in the new laptop. I can't wait to play with CoreImage on such a beast.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Of Course...
by godawful on Tue 10th Jan 2006 19:14 UTC
godawful
Member since:
2005-06-29

youll have to pay a restocking fee, but that imght be worth it to you

Reply Score: 1

Awesome
by Smartpatrol on Tue 10th Jan 2006 19:17 UTC
Smartpatrol
Member since:
2005-07-06

This is great news however i am discouraged by the pricing still over priced. I also think its a mistake not to release the Mini first(of which they would have sold thousands of quickly)

Reply Score: 3

RE: Awesome
by modmans2ndcoming on Tue 10th Jan 2006 23:52 UTC in reply to "Awesome"
modmans2ndcoming Member since:
2005-11-09

umm... they are not over priced

show me a system that is the same config that goes for far less.

Ill even let you not find one with a built in camera

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Awesome
by kaiwai on Wed 11th Jan 2006 04:53 UTC in reply to "RE: Awesome"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

babe, don't worry, Smartpatrol is a whiner; if Steve Jobs appeared at his house, and gave it to him for free, he would whine about the colour or some other trivial matter as to allow him to hear his own voice.

Reply Score: 0

RE[3]: Awesome
by Smartpatrol on Wed 11th Jan 2006 19:59 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Awesome"
Smartpatrol Member since:
2005-07-06

babe, don't worry, Smartpatrol is a whiner; if Steve Jobs appeared at his house, and gave it to him for free, he would whine about the colour or some other trivial matter as to allow him to hear his own voice.

You must be confusing me with someone else. Since your limited intellect totally missed the basic premise of my post. That being one of the primary benefits of Apple switching to the Intel Platform <wait for it> lower cost PC components and processors compared to the PPC platform. You would think that this would manifest itself in lowering the price of Macintosh Hardware which it obviously didn't. So I will say again the new intel Macs are still over priced like the old ones. Apple would be smart to lower their prices slightly in order to sell more systems and increase their market share. I am sure you wouldn’t like that at all, comfortable with your elitist members only Apple club.

Reply Score: 0

RE[4]: Awesome
by kaiwai on Thu 12th Jan 2006 07:43 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Awesome"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

Yeah, expensive - that explains why Apple Mac shipments are *only* growing at 25% per year - yeah, I understand, what a pathetic failure Steve is, maybe he should retire and hand it over to SmartPatrol, the local arm chair CEO and all knowing guru to enlightenment.

Edited 2006-01-12 07:50

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Awesome
by kaiwai on Thu 12th Jan 2006 07:48 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Awesome"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

Oh, and btw, people still whine about Dells 'high prices' - its people wanting something damn cheap, then whining when their wizz bang half baked computer falls to pieces because the vendor chose to source their components from half a dozen dodgy dealerships with shoddy records.

Sorry mate, you purchase a Mac for the FULL, god forbid this term, 'experience' - I like the fact that I can leap from update to update, from version to version without a care in the world. I have a large selection of software I can choose from, from vendors providing good support.

Compare that to the generic PC world of being stuck with Windows - and forget about Linux, its a joke on the desktop - crappy hardware support, no software vendor support and lets not forget the never ending jihad between different developers and their immature "I'm taking my marbles and going home' everytime someone in a opensource project doesn't agree with them.

So yes, you can go generic PC and put up with the pain and missery, and hell, if you're into a good dosage of S&M, then good on you - some here, however, have a life, a job, and numerous other non-IT related stuff that we focus out attention on.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Awesome
by Smartpatrol on Thu 12th Jan 2006 21:18 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Awesome"
Smartpatrol Member since:
2005-07-06

Oh, and btw, people still whine about Dells 'high prices' - its people wanting something damn cheap, then whining when their wizz bang half baked computer falls to pieces because the vendor chose to source their components from half a dozen dodgy dealerships with shoddy records.

You get what you pay for just like anything.

Sorry mate, you purchase a Mac for the FULL, god forbid this term, 'experience' - I like the fact that I can leap from update to update, from version to version without a care in the world. I have a large selection of software I can choose from, from vendors providing good support.

Point release is hardly a version change if i you are making some kind of obscure Mac OS vs. Windows Comparison.

Compare that to the generic PC world of being stuck with Windows - and forget about Linux, its a joke on the desktop - crappy hardware support, no software vendor support and lets not forget the never ending jihad between different developers and their immature "I'm taking my marbles and going home' everytime someone in a opensource project doesn't agree with them.

So you love your Mac good for you still doesn't make you right. I love my Mac too.

So yes, you can go generic PC and put up with the pain and missery, and hell, if you're into a good dosage of S&M, then good on you - some here, however, have a life, a job, and numerous other non-IT related stuff that we focus out attention on.

Each to his own i have very few issues with the countless White box PC's I have built over the last eight years. Just becasue you can't sucesfully build a PC doesn't mean everyone has the same difficulty.

Some people make their living in Corporate IT and actually know what they are talking about.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Awesome
by kaiwai on Fri 13th Jan 2006 03:51 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Awesome"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

Some people make their living in Corporate IT and actually know what they are talking about.

Babe, who said anything about corporate IT? If it is the corporate world, I would use neither Mac or Windows - it would be a centralised processing setup with SUN Ray appliances.

Reply Score: 1

v LOL!
by Timerever on Tue 10th Jan 2006 19:24 UTC
RE: LOL!
by Tom K on Tue 10th Jan 2006 20:43 UTC in reply to "LOL!"
Tom K Member since:
2005-07-06

Sounds like someone saw a Powerbook user on the bus and became extremely jealous.

Or maybe just a console fanboy. Yeah, he definitely sounds like one.

Reply Score: 3

lol...
by helf on Tue 10th Jan 2006 19:24 UTC
helf
Member since:
2005-07-06

MacBook Pro... what a terrible name...

Reply Score: 5

RE: lol...
by Emil on Tue 10th Jan 2006 19:31 UTC in reply to "lol..."
Emil Member since:
2005-06-29

Heh, I share your sentiments. They can do nice design, why they couldn't figure out better name? It sounds like a $2 ISP offer.

Reply Score: 1

RE: lol...
by Get a Life on Tue 10th Jan 2006 20:09 UTC in reply to "lol..."
Get a Life Member since:
2006-01-01

Agreed. MacBook Pro? Am I supposed to say that to people out loud and not feel stupider for it? Even Probook would have sounded better than that.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: lol...
by Pseudo Cyborg on Wed 11th Jan 2006 00:07 UTC in reply to "RE: lol..."
Pseudo Cyborg Member since:
2005-07-09

proBook... ProBook... Probook. lol

In any case, I agree that it does sound much better than "MacBook Pro".

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: lol...
by AnalystX on Wed 11th Jan 2006 02:55 UTC in reply to "RE: lol..."
AnalystX Member since:
2006-01-11

I would have liked to see them name it FireBook in remembrance of FireWire which seems to be slipping from computing consciousness. SInce I heard that Apple hired a couple of Sony industrial design engineers, I think they could take it a step further with a red pigmented carbon fiber chassis as an option.

Despite this off-the-wall alternative (I would like carbon fiber notebooks), Apple could have picked a better name.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: lol...
by Luposian on Tue 10th Jan 2006 21:04 UTC in reply to "lol..."
Luposian Member since:
2005-07-27

I agree... the Powerbook name has ALWAYS meant the laptops. Why not call it the PowerBook CD (for Core Duo) or even PowerBook ICE (for Intel Core Edition)... yeah... ICE... I like that!

As I've been saying for awhile now, "Apple will do what Apple will do."

All we can do is stick around or walk away.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: lol...
by dtravis7 on Wed 11th Jan 2006 11:56 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: lol..."
dtravis7 Member since:
2005-07-14

What does the iBook name mean then? PC's??

You are bitter because of the Intel CPU that can boot XP. The new MacBook is a way faster Laptop than anything with a G5 in it. I could care about the name. Give me the performance!

Reply Score: 2

RE: lol...
by AdamR01 on Wed 11th Jan 2006 05:05 UTC in reply to "lol..."
AdamR01 Member since:
2005-09-14

So will the Intel "iBook" be called MacBook Consumer...?

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: lol...
by sp29 on Wed 11th Jan 2006 05:24 UTC in reply to "RE: lol..."
sp29 Member since:
2006-01-04

It will be called whatever they want it. Maybe they will call it MacBook 360 just for you.

Reply Score: 1

heh...
by hobgoblin on Tue 10th Jan 2006 19:29 UTC
hobgoblin
Member since:
2005-07-06

first thing ill do if i get hold of a intel imac is to clean the system out and install linux ;)

Reply Score: 2

RE: heh...
by Get a Life on Tue 10th Jan 2006 21:59 UTC in reply to "heh..."
Get a Life Member since:
2006-01-01

And enjoy the sparkling mediocrity that is ATi's Linux support.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: heh...
by hobgoblin on Tue 10th Jan 2006 22:45 UTC in reply to "RE: heh..."
hobgoblin Member since:
2005-07-06

3D isnt everything. from what i recall, the open source xorg driver is quite useable ;)

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: heh...
by Get a Life on Tue 10th Jan 2006 23:01 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: heh..."
Get a Life Member since:
2006-01-01

http://ftp.x.org/pub/X11R7.0/doc/html/radeon.4.html

There's no RV5xx listed there, so it seems doubtful.

At this point, giving up 3D also means hampering the performance or availability of all of the pointless eye-candy people expect from their future computing experiences.

ATi releases drivers for Linux, they're just mediocre compared to what nVidia offers. There doesn't seem like a lot of point shelling out a lot of money for an iMac if your Linux experience suffers when running Linux, if doing so is your intended goal. You'd have to really like the form-factor.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: heh...
by hobgoblin on Wed 11th Jan 2006 09:40 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: heh..."
hobgoblin Member since:
2005-07-06

thing is, im just as home in the console as on the gui.
so for me, eyecandy is less of a issue.

and i like the idea of having a whole computer inside the screen. given the shuttle and similar solutions i wonder why noone have gone the route.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: heh...
by Get a Life on Wed 11th Jan 2006 20:04 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: heh..."
Get a Life Member since:
2006-01-01

Gateway used to do just that. If they stopped, it was probably because they didn't sell or they had a difficult time cooling a Pentium 4 within such a small space.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: heh...
by hobgoblin on Wed 11th Jan 2006 21:18 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: heh..."
hobgoblin Member since:
2005-07-06

hmm, maybe so. the cpu that apple are using is a laptop one right?

still, would be fun to be able to buy a similar solution but as a bearebone-like system. one that uses the mxm latop graphical modules and laptop cpus.

Reply Score: 1

What people have failed to notice is...
by chmeee on Tue 10th Jan 2006 19:30 UTC
chmeee
Member since:
2006-01-10

there is no Firewire 800 on any of the new offerings. My conspiracy-o-meter rings a 10 for Intel "Not-invented-here" syndrome, so are trying to kill it.

Reply Score: 1

Eugenia Member since:
2005-06-28

FW800 killed itself by not being connector-compatible with FW400. Compatibility is the most important thing in this industry.

Reply Score: 5

Disruptor Member since:
2005-11-06

Agreed, compatibility may be one of the most important things in the industry. The way it's achieved is far from being the best one though. As for the firewire thing. Just one question: with intel making processors for Apple *and* being the main baker of USB what did you expect to happen to firewire? Firewire is faster and generally better than USB by leaps and bounts - i am sure you are aware of that and how much intel and MS have done anything they could to kill firewire. Even so firewire has become the standard in so many areas. Even so firewire 800 tears apart it's USB (wanabe) counterpart in any benchmark. And suddenly Apple remembers `compatibility' ... riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. Don't you think that something suspicious is going on here? Why would apple refer to compatibility so vigorously here and so romantically when it comes to dumping the far superior G-series of processors for the dead-horse-being-floged x86 ones? And please, please don't buy the `benchmarks'. The G5 processor (with all the little funding it had for it's development) is cooler, more efficient and cheaper to produce than any x86 processor. A little more funding on it would put it an other 10 ages ahead for the Yonah to reach it. And please don't say that the switch was a decision that Apple took. It was something that more or less other companies forced the Apple to do. And i think it's connected directly to drm. Connect the dots eugenia. Connect the dots. We get c and d class technology here for a reason. Please, don't buy into the stuff that a manager/CEO/you name it says. You can understand what `our product is Ok - buy it' means when it comes from a CEO. I mean do you really believe Jobs believes what he says on processors?

P.S.: Sorry for the rant but I think that there is nothing to cheer about with the moves that apple was (indirectly) *forced* to take. Nothing at all. Sorry.

Reply Score: 1

Snooks Member since:
2006-01-10

Of course your wrong. If compatability was the most important thing digicams wouldn't all be firewire they would be USB. FW 400 is still faster than USB 2 in most cases btw.

Reply Score: 1

ohhmaagawd Member since:
2005-11-15

apple was forced to go intel? WTF? How would that work? You have anything to back this claim up? How can intel force Apple to do anything? This makes no sense...

The switch was 1) economies of scale - intel motherboards are commodities 2) IBM couldn't make a low wattage, fast laptop chip. Intel does.

Reply Score: 2

RenatoRam Member since:
2005-11-14

You don't seem to have got what happened: IBM decided to stop spending millions of cash to do custom development for a _small_ and _niche_ customer that afterwards whined all the time and never bought the promised volumes.

So Apple had to choose another chip. Simple as that.

But Apple will never admit it.

Reply Score: 1

spook Member since:
2006-01-09

NO, that happened in your own personal little dream world

If IBM had produced a G5 laptop chip, Apple would still be using PowerPC

Reply Score: 1

rayiner Member since:
2005-07-06

Right, Apple switched just because of the G5 laptop issue. Steve didn't actually want to switch half a decade earlier, and he didn't switch now because he was sick of Apple spending enormous energy and money chasing the x86 world, and only achieving parity once in a blue moon. They certainly didn't switch because IBM's future PowerPC plans make no sense on the desktop, seeing as they are comprised of high-clockrate, low IPC designs optimized for floating-point (at the expense of integer performance!) and massive thread-level parallelism, neither of which are of paramount importance ont he desktop.

If IBM had made a laptop G5, and Apple had stayed PowerPC, Apple would be screwed. Look at the per-clock estimates of the Power6. This CPU, which won't be released until well into 2007, is estimated to perform, at 4 GHz, only marginally better in SPECint than the current fastest Opteron. Now, using the fact that a PPC970 is 75% as fast as a POWER4 (due to smaller caches, narrower busses, etc), we can estimate that a POWER6-based desktop chip would perform, at 4GHz, much like a 2.4 GHz Opteron. Very impressive for a chip that won't couldn't even be released for a year and a half, huh?

Let's face the truth: desktop PPC fell prey to economics of scale. Intel and AMD, combined, are simply more willing and able to tackle the desktop market than are IBM and Motorola. It makes no sense for Apple to continue spending money chasing x86, when AMD and Intel are perfectly happy to do all of their R&D for them.

Reply Score: 1

Problems
by Smartpatrol on Tue 10th Jan 2006 19:37 UTC
Smartpatrol
Member since:
2005-07-06

I wonder if early adopters are going to suffer the problems of a new design that seems to be happeing more and more with Apple products. Glad i can't afford one now i will wait until the first versions are cleaned out and get maybe a rev 2 or 3

Reply Score: 1

RE: Problems
by Tyr. on Tue 10th Jan 2006 19:42 UTC in reply to "Problems"
Tyr. Member since:
2005-07-06

I wonder if early adopters are going to suffer the problems of a new design that seems to be happeing more and more with Apple products. Glad i can't afford one now i will wait until the first versions are cleaned out and get maybe a rev 2 or 3

Well all the problems with the secondary hardware have been resolved, like the exploding powersupply and squeeking fans. It looks to me the big change is the motherboard and since that's likely to be manufactured by intel how bad can the quality be ?

Edit: changing the otherboard will actually solve a problem with some of the original iMacs which was leaking capacitors. (assuming the new motherboard hasn't got the same problme :-)

Edited 2006-01-10 19:46

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Problems
by Smartpatrol on Tue 10th Jan 2006 19:43 UTC in reply to "RE: Problems"
Smartpatrol Member since:
2005-07-06

Well all the problems with the secondary hardware have been resolved, like the exploding powersupply and squeeking fans. It looks to me the big change is the motherboard and since that's likely to be manufactured by intel how bad can the quality be ?

the iMac may be ok but what about the MacBook Pro? Of course time will tell hoepfully it goes off without a hitch.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Problems
by Adam S on Tue 10th Jan 2006 19:56 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Problems"
Adam S Member since:
2005-04-01

Macbook Pro is pretty close to the current Powerbooks with different mobos and processors.

Reply Score: 5

RE: Problems
by TomB7 on Tue 10th Jan 2006 21:52 UTC in reply to "Problems"
TomB7 Member since:
2006-01-03

Smart Mac users wait a month before buying a new line and check Macintouch.com frequently, keeping in mind that people with problems write in more often than happy customers. That site, BTW, did a nice user-reported reliability survey of various models recently.

Reply Score: 2

v Loosers...
by Timerever on Tue 10th Jan 2006 19:39 UTC
RE
by Kroc on Tue 10th Jan 2006 19:40 UTC
Kroc
Member since:
2005-11-10

No-one's mentioned windows XP yet! I wonder if XP will dual boot on the machine well. Cannot wait for the first XP benchtest on the machine compared to OSX. Exciting times ahead!

Reply Score: 1

Massive Switching
by BlackJack75 on Wed 11th Jan 2006 00:33 UTC in reply to "RE"
BlackJack75 Member since:
2005-08-29

Of all the users I know a lot would love to at least try a mac but refuse to do so for two reasons:

a) that one little app that requires windows (virtualpc is unbearbly slow unless you have a very high end machine, and even then...)

b) games, games, games. I had 500$ dollars to buy a computer for my nephew this christmas. I could have got her a (use) mac mini and she certainly would have loved it. But she would have to forget about so many games...

If you can just dual boot to run that special app or that special game, that would just rock.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Massive Switching
by PlatformAgnostic on Wed 11th Jan 2006 01:42 UTC in reply to "Massive Switching"
PlatformAgnostic Member since:
2006-01-02

VPC will be pretty good for non-gaming scenarious because it will all be directly executing in x86 assembly without translation now. Probably MSFT will just port over their VPC for Windows execution engine.

Reply Score: 2

Who is burning?
by hraq on Tue 10th Jan 2006 19:44 UTC
hraq
Member since:
2005-07-06

I guess that the previous owners of powerBook are now burning that they didn't wait for this beast.
Excellent Job Apple!!!
This laptop is extremely super capable; I advice normal computer users to wait for "MacBook Home" which will save them alot of money. Be aware MacBook Pro is over powerful for normal users, it is just for power users and professionals.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Who is burning?
by gizzlon on Tue 10th Jan 2006 22:49 UTC in reply to "Who is burning?"
gizzlon Member since:
2005-12-18

"Excellent Job Apple!!!
This laptop is extremely super capable; I advice normal computer users to wait for "MacBook Home" which will save them alot of money. Be aware MacBook Pro is over powerful for normal users, it is just for power users and professionals."


oh oh, brainwash -alert

Edited 2006-01-10 22:52

Reply Score: 1

RE: Who is burning?
by Thomas2005 on Wed 11th Jan 2006 16:25 UTC in reply to "Who is burning?"
Thomas2005 Member since:
2005-11-07

"MacBook Home" sounds good, but I think Apple will leave off the "Home" part because having a Home and Pro is too much like XP Home and XP Pro. I also think MacBook Con, for consumer, will not be used.

Reply Score: 1

But..
by Milo_Hoffman on Tue 10th Jan 2006 19:49 UTC
Milo_Hoffman
Member since:
2005-07-06

Ok..here is my perspective as someone who was planning on switching every computer I have over to apples in the next year or so.

1) No intel mini. That was going to my pick for my personal PC. Not going to by the iMAC, that big stripe at the bottom would drive me crazy and I have a sweet LCD already.

2) No ibook. I need to replace my wife's thinkpad that is starting to age. No way I am going to buy her a $2000 laptop for what she uses. I realize that compared to the less capable Duo Core Thinkpad that is also 2000+ you actually get more for your money but its just too much for her right now.



So....Here I was ready to spend about $2000 TODAY at store.apple.com and order at least 2 computers and maybe even another one for my parents, but sorry no sale.

Reply Score: 5

RE: But..
by Get a Life on Tue 10th Jan 2006 20:21 UTC in reply to "But.."
Get a Life Member since:
2006-01-01

They'll just take your $2000 when they release the computers you want, then. They weren't ready, and never claimed to be releasing their entire line of computers now or at once. It would have entailed considerable intentional crippling for Apple to sell their low-end with Intel processors that were considerably faster than those available in their high-end. An iBook with Yonah but no replacement for the Powerbook? A $500 Mini with a Yonah that defeats the iMac handily? Come on, be real.

Reply Score: 5

v RE: But..
by Kroc on Tue 10th Jan 2006 20:51 UTC in reply to "But.."
If you take 30 seconds...
by Kelson on Tue 10th Jan 2006 21:10 UTC in reply to "But.."
Kelson Member since:
2005-07-06

you could figure out exactly why.

The single core Yonah comes out in about 1-2 months. These are the CPU's that will be used in the Mac Mini and the iBook or MacBook (non-pro), or whatever it's called.

I think Apple is waiting for the single core Yonah instead of just using Pentium M's so they get SSE3 across the entire product line.

- Kelson

Reply Score: 2

RE: If you take 30 seconds...
by Ravyne on Tue 10th Jan 2006 21:51 UTC in reply to "If you take 30 seconds..."
Ravyne Member since:
2006-01-08

Agreed. I'd bet that single-cores will go into the mini and at least the two lower-end ibook replacements. I'd also bet that the PowerMac G5 won't be replaced until the conroe/morem CPUs are available at the end of the year. I also think they'll need something that fills the gap of the 12" powerbook, so there will either be a dual-core iBook replacement at the high end of that line, or another MacBook Pro later with some slight enhancements over the iBooks, but basically the same. As for the mini, it might be dual-core as well if it becomes the media center mac that everyone's been claiming, because Intel's viiv platform prescribes a core-duo as part of the chipset. I also hope that the retain the dedicated graphics solution when they do announce the iBook and mini replacements instead of integrating Intel's GMA onboard stuff. Not only would that suck for graphics, but it wouldn't accelerate their Core-imaging library either.

As long as Vista or XP will run on these things, my next machine will be a dual-core mac.

Also, MacBook is a retarded name. I don't understand how something so ugly can come out of the Apple camp. Somebody's sleeping on the job.

Reply Score: 1

RE: If you take 30 seconds...
by TomB7 on Tue 10th Jan 2006 21:57 UTC in reply to "If you take 30 seconds..."
TomB7 Member since:
2006-01-03

HMMM. I wonder if a measly single core Yonah will look pathetic vs a G4? I expect it will. We may soon be able to run the benchmarks.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: If you take 30 seconds...
by rayiner on Tue 10th Jan 2006 22:03 UTC in reply to "RE: If you take 30 seconds..."
rayiner Member since:
2005-07-06

The Intel Core Duo is 4.5x faster for integer and 5.1x faster for floating-point than the G4. Even with one core, it's still well over twice as fast as the G4.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: If you take 30 seconds...
by Get a Life on Tue 10th Jan 2006 22:03 UTC in reply to "RE: If you take 30 seconds..."
Get a Life Member since:
2006-01-01

Since my measly single-core Dothan doesn't look pathetic compared to the G4, that seems rather unlikely.

Reply Score: 1

RE: But..
by TomB7 on Tue 10th Jan 2006 21:54 UTC in reply to "But.."
TomB7 Member since:
2006-01-03

I feel your pain. I wanted to get my wife a new iBook.

Reply Score: 1

RE: But..
by AnalystX on Wed 11th Jan 2006 02:45 UTC in reply to "But.."
AnalystX Member since:
2006-01-11

What exactly is sitting behind your monitor that is more exciting to look at? The larger frame width ("big stripe" : whatever that means) at the bottom would drive you crazy? Wow.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: But..
by wakeupneo on Wed 11th Jan 2006 06:52 UTC in reply to "RE: But.."
wakeupneo Member since:
2005-07-06

I actually agree. I think the chunky white section below the screen makes it pretty ugly. As far as design goes, I think the 'lampshade' model was better executed.

Reply Score: 1

Expected better hardware specs
by mjg59 on Tue 10th Jan 2006 19:49 UTC
mjg59
Member since:
2005-10-17

Lenovo announced the Thinkpad T60 last week (no, not shipping yet). It's based on the same Duo processor as the Macbook, but the top-end model is 2.1GHz rather than 1.8, is available with the same X1600 GPU as the Macbook and is likely to retail for a similar sort of amount.

At that point, you're comparing two machines with similar build qualities. The Mac comes with backlit keyboard, built-in camera and the magnetic power connector. The T60 comes with 3G/EDGE/whatever, is slightly lighter and has a 3-year warranty as standard. Unless you desperately need any of these, there's no real reason to go for one over the other.

So while the Macbook looks like good hardware, it's not actually better than the competition. I'd expect people to be buying based on OS rather than based on the hardware.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Expected better hardware specs
by TomB7 on Tue 10th Jan 2006 22:00 UTC in reply to "Expected better hardware specs"
TomB7 Member since:
2006-01-03

I bet they benchmarked it against a Thinkpad with XP! Grin!

Steve actually sported a Thinkpad (running NeXTSTEP) before his return to Apple.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Expected better hardware specs
by Sabon on Tue 10th Jan 2006 22:01 UTC in reply to "Expected better hardware specs"
Sabon Member since:
2005-07-06

Quote: "At that point, you're comparing two machines with similar build qualities. The Mac comes with backlit keyboard, built-in camera and the magnetic power connector. The T60 comes with 3G/EDGE/whatever, is slightly lighter and has a 3-year warranty as standard. Unless you desperately need any of these, there's no real reason to go for one over the other."

Yes, but one comes with Mac OS X which you can supposedly duel boot with Windows. The other comes with Windows and can't run Mac OS X. So ... two thumbs up for Apple and two thumbs pointing sideways for Leveno. Of course you can wipe out Windows and install Linux on the latter.

Reply Score: 1

modmans2ndcoming Member since:
2005-11-09

So, tehy WILL have 2.1 GHz core duo.

hmm... what is the availability of that chip right now?

want to bet that Apple will be bumping the powerbooks next quarter or so?

Reply Score: 1

No media-centric Mini
by eMagius on Tue 10th Jan 2006 19:52 UTC
eMagius
Member since:
2005-07-06

The rumored new Mac Mini was what I was most looking forward to. The new iMac is nice and the MacBook Pro is powerful (and quite expensive!), but neither really brings anything new or innovative to the table.

iWeb might be neat, but Apple's site is getting hammered right now so it's hard for me to really look it over.

Reply Score: 1

RE: No media-centric Mini
by Get a Life on Tue 10th Jan 2006 20:24 UTC in reply to "No media-centric Mini"
Get a Life Member since:
2006-01-01

A new Mini would not have brought anything innovative to the proverbial table, either. It would have simply met the price/form-factor that you wanted.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: No media-centric Mini
by eMagius on Wed 11th Jan 2006 02:03 UTC in reply to "RE: No media-centric Mini"
eMagius Member since:
2005-07-06

Well, if the rumors had been true about the Mini being a digital entertainment hub, then it certainly would have been something new. A Mini with a mere chip swap wasn't what the hype was about.

Reply Score: 1

EXCELLENT
by badtz on Tue 10th Jan 2006 19:54 UTC
badtz
Member since:
2005-06-29

I'm stunned that they announced so many products this morning ....!

I'm particularly interested now in the MacBook Pro. If it can also dual/triple boot linux/Windows, I'm ALL set! ;)

This will be my next notebook, and I really like the idea of the new Power connector [so the notebook isn't yanked when it's tripped over] ....

very exciting stuff ;)

Reply Score: 1

What about black ones ?
by dcibils on Tue 10th Jan 2006 19:56 UTC
dcibils
Member since:
2005-12-28

A black iMac o MacBook Pro like that of the iPod Nano would be so awesome!!

Aluminum is just getting to much copycats.

So, no more iBooks ?

Just MacBook & MacBook Pro ?

has the "i" era just ended ?

Reply Score: 1

I knew new powerbooks were coming..
by vondur on Tue 10th Jan 2006 19:56 UTC
vondur
Member since:
2005-07-07

The university where I work is blowing out 12" Powerbooks for $999 US. Not too bad, but I am sure they will be rolling out all models of macbook pro's in the coming weeks.


matt

Reply Score: 1

...
by suryad on Tue 10th Jan 2006 20:03 UTC
suryad
Member since:
2005-07-09

This is great news indeed. I shall be most interested in benchmarks that is for sure. But if push comes to shove I will still get a Sager or something over the mac notebooks simply because they come with 64 bit procs from AMD and they have geforce 7800 gtx's in them. I always can use more power. However for ultimate mobility and simplicity I think this Mac Powerbook should fit anyone's needs. Great job done Stevie! I look forward to benches! So the G4 myth has been settled now lets check out the XP vs OS X myth!

Reply Score: 1

Cool, but?
by mallard on Tue 10th Jan 2006 20:23 UTC
mallard
Member since:
2006-01-06

Only one USB port! My HP has three and I'm still constantly swapping things round!

How many mouse buttons? (I'm on linux so I can't view the QTVR). If it's going to multi-boot with Linux or XP then it needs two.

How long till we get a consumer notebook? Or Mac Mini?

I want one!

Reply Score: 1

RE: Cool, but?
by Tom K on Tue 10th Jan 2006 20:46 UTC in reply to "Cool, but?"
Tom K Member since:
2005-07-06

There are two USB ports -- one on each side. Due to how much there is built into the MacBooks, there's less need for as many USB ports. Wireless mouse? Bluetooth. Webcam? iSight. External hard drive? Firewire (superior over USB 2.0 for constant, massive data transfers).

Apple's intention is not for you to install Linux or Windows on it, so no, it doesn't "need" two mouse buttons. That's just a requirement of Windows/Linux. OS X deals with one mouse button.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Cool, but?
by Lu-Tze on Tue 10th Jan 2006 21:24 UTC in reply to "RE: Cool, but?"
Lu-Tze Member since:
2006-01-10

Justifying fewer ports is funny. Maybe if they had none, you would have found it even better. There are USB keys, hardware USB dongles, USB printers, MP3 players, etc all kinds of things people need to use. Can't se how giving more ports would be a bad thing?

And let's not go into the mouse buttons, that seems to be quietly going the "Intel is slow" way...now that two button mice (configured as one button) have become standard with iMacs.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Cool, but?
by Tom K on Tue 10th Jan 2006 21:54 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Cool, but?"
Tom K Member since:
2005-07-06

I have two USB ports on my iBook, and I have never found it a limiting factor.

I've had a wireless mouse receiver and USB drive plugged in at one point, and that's the most I've ever needed. If you need 3+ USB ports, for USB hardware dongles, printers, and "all kinds of things people need to use", perhaps you should be looking at desktop-replacement "notebooks", or desktops in general?

Who the hell walks around with their USB printer plugged in? One Firewire and two USB is plenty for 95% of users.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Cool, but?
by Lu-Tze on Wed 11th Jan 2006 04:29 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Cool, but?"
Lu-Tze Member since:
2006-01-10

And where does one find a "desktop replacement Mac notebook"?

My gripe is that saying two USB ports is better than three or pulling out a number like 95% is pretty remarkable. I realise I am not typical user because I have an extra keyboard and mouse attached to my laptop half the time but I am not going there. Around my workplace, a lot of people use softwares that need hardware dongles that block one of the usb ports. Add to that a mouse and you are left with nothing.

And while I have a network printer both at work and at home, I have still not succeeded in getting the Powerbook to recognize the printer server at home so it only leaves me the option of hooking up the printer through a USB connection, which requires pulling out the mouse. In the real world, people do print from a laptop, you know, even if they don't carry the printer around, jeez.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Cool, but?
by mallard on Wed 11th Jan 2006 01:11 UTC in reply to "RE: Cool, but?"
mallard Member since:
2006-01-06

Having two buttons is useful even in OS X and apple ship a two button mouse with all current desktop Macs, so why not put two buttons on a notebook?
Although, in my experiance, ctrl-clicking is not that much of a hassle on a notebook, where it can be done with one hand (compared to requiring both hands on a desktop), but still, it would be nice to have a two button *Book.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Cool, but?
by Tom K on Wed 11th Jan 2006 01:25 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Cool, but?"
Tom K Member since:
2005-07-06

If it were done aesthetically, I don't see why not. If it was done as two visible buttons, it would detract from the simplistic design of them.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Cool, but?
by TomB7 on Wed 11th Jan 2006 13:56 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Cool, but?"
TomB7 Member since:
2006-01-03

This might be news to you, but you COULD add the Apple two-button "supermouse" externally to the laptop by USB.

IMHO: one button is plenty.

Reply Score: 1

Vanderpool ...
by PLan on Tue 10th Jan 2006 20:23 UTC
PLan
Member since:
2006-01-10

Don't forget the Intel Core Duo chips apparently have Vanderpool technology included. Should make for some interesting future developments.

Reply Score: 1

keynote video?
by dr_gonzo on Tue 10th Jan 2006 20:44 UTC
dr_gonzo
Member since:
2005-07-06

Does anyone know where the video for the keynote can be seen?

Reply Score: 1

RE: keynote video?
by taos on Tue 10th Jan 2006 20:48 UTC in reply to "keynote video?"
taos Member since:
2005-11-16
RE[2]: keynote video?
by dr_gonzo on Tue 10th Jan 2006 20:53 UTC in reply to "RE: keynote video?"
dr_gonzo Member since:
2005-07-06

thanks ;)

Reply Score: 1

I really don't get all the hype
by tikal26 on Tue 10th Jan 2006 20:54 UTC
tikal26
Member since:
2005-11-12

I really don't get it. I am not a big mac fan even though I like their os, but their macbook pro or whatever they call it is nothing great you could probably get something similar from lenovo or HP the only diff is the software and How is it that it is 2 to 3 times faster and still have the same clock speed?

Reply Score: 1

RE: I really don't get all the hype
by jeffbax on Tue 10th Jan 2006 21:02 UTC in reply to "I really don't get all the hype"
jeffbax Member since:
2005-07-27

How is it faster at same clock?

Same reason an Athlon64 bitchslaps a P4 at a GHZ slower...

I'm so tempted by the new Macs... but I just got a 12" PB last like March or May ;)

Reply Score: 1

RE: I really don't get all the hype
by sp29 on Tue 10th Jan 2006 21:05 UTC in reply to "I really don't get all the hype"
sp29 Member since:
2006-01-04

it's 2-3 times faster than the powerbook.

sure you can get a hp, i have one, but it has no iApps and not as good customer service and support as Apple.

It sounds like you don't need a mac anyways.

Reply Score: 1

RE: I really don't get all the hype
by Kelson on Tue 10th Jan 2006 21:15 UTC in reply to "I really don't get all the hype"
Kelson Member since:
2005-07-06

Yes, the difference is the software.

But then, it's the software that is most important, because that is what you use all day long. I don't sit there staring at my CPU or HD, or navigating the chips on the RAM modules. It's the OS & Applications that matter most, because that is what you interact with.

- Kelson

Reply Score: 1

Price
by locohijo on Tue 10th Jan 2006 20:58 UTC
locohijo
Member since:
2006-01-03

Hmmm, price is still about the same as with the comparable PowerPC model but then again, you'd get a dual core system.

Anyhow, I personally think that they'd lower the price of the Intel Macs as soon as their PowerPC-based Macs' stocks are depleted. They just priced it so as not to 'eclipse' the sales of the PPC based Macs.

Reply Score: 1

Battery life?!?!
by Hermes88 on Tue 10th Jan 2006 21:05 UTC
Hermes88
Member since:
2005-07-11

Why is there NO mention of battery life whatsoever on Apple's page, other than a "Battery life varies with use" disclaimer. Somehow I get the feeling a few users are going to be REAL disappointed with the battery as compared to the old Powerbook.. Even my little 12" can run for in excess of 3 1/2 hours.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Battery life?!?!
by Get a Life on Tue 10th Jan 2006 21:19 UTC in reply to "Battery life?!?!"
Get a Life Member since:
2006-01-01

So can my Thinkpad T42. Battery life does depend on what you're doing. Running an optical drive constantly, or playing a 3D FPS will both drain batteries rather quickly.

Reply Score: 2

Expresscard....
by Kelson on Tue 10th Jan 2006 21:18 UTC
Kelson
Member since:
2005-07-06

I do have to admit that while the Expresscard is cool and it's nice to see the technology move forward....but...I just signed a 2 year VzW EVDO contract and got my PCMCIA card set up and working.....

Today, I went and ordered a MacBook Pro, fully loaded. I'm using a 1ghz TiBook, so it was time for an upgrade. A while after putting in my order, I find that there is not PCMCIA slot, just an Expresscard/34 slot.

Now I have to figure some way to get my EVDO to work when my MacBook Pro arrives in a month or so....now that is frustrating.

I hope someone makes an adaptor for this until an ExpressCard/34 EVDO card comes out.

- Kelson

Reply Score: 1

quite funny...
by synergy on Tue 10th Jan 2006 21:19 UTC
synergy
Member since:
2006-01-10

i must agree with those that find it hilarious how apple now touts intel chips over powerpc while they told in detail why powerpc was better than x86 in the past - call it a 180 degree-turn (otoh, pentium m is a different beast than the netburst architecture - however...)!

also the price for the powerbook in germany is from €2599 upwards - a far cry from the $1999 mentioned here, especially given that the euro is higher than the dollar!

at around €1800 it would have become interesting to me, because i'm looking for a new notebook.
but at the inflationary prices, i'll leave to the mac enthusiasts!
sadly apple doesn't sell os-x without the hardware. if the price would be comparable to win xp or soon vista, apple would soon sell as much licenses as microsoft does, and they would make much more money than they currently do.
maybe somewhere in the future, steve jobs will come to the same conclusion!

Reply Score: 3

RE: quite funny...
by Get a Life on Tue 10th Jan 2006 21:35 UTC in reply to "quite funny..."
Get a Life Member since:
2006-01-01

The price for you includes your VAT, doesn't it? Then the higher prices Apple charges in foreign markets, which might simply be a matter of low-volume sales.

Reply Score: 1

is it Vista ready?
by jtrapp on Tue 10th Jan 2006 21:44 UTC
jtrapp
Member since:
2005-07-06

just curious...

Reply Score: 0

Download the keynote
by ronaldst on Tue 10th Jan 2006 21:49 UTC
ronaldst
Member since:
2005-06-29

where could I DL the keynote? Pretty Please ;)

Reply Score: 1

RE: Download the keynote
by Kroc on Tue 10th Jan 2006 22:05 UTC in reply to "Download the keynote"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10
RE[2]: Download the keynote
by ronaldst on Tue 10th Jan 2006 22:35 UTC in reply to "RE: Download the keynote"
ronaldst Member since:
2005-06-29

I want to DL it and not Stream it.

Reply Score: 1

SPEC benchmarks
by nimble on Tue 10th Jan 2006 21:59 UTC
nimble
Member since:
2005-07-06

Funny how the SPEC benchmarks are suddenly back in favour at Apple. Watch out for Apple fans who used to debunk them doing a sreeching U-turn.

Reply Score: 1

RE: SPEC benchmarks
by TomB7 on Tue 10th Jan 2006 22:03 UTC in reply to "SPEC benchmarks"
TomB7 Member since:
2006-01-03

I expect that that's what Intel provided to them. I'd prefer a Photoshop bake-off, or something more relevant to the real world.

At least I don't have listen to people DEFENDING Spec anymore.

Grin!

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: SPEC benchmarks
by rayiner on Tue 10th Jan 2006 22:07 UTC in reply to "RE: SPEC benchmarks"
rayiner Member since:
2005-07-06

Photoshop is a crappy measure of anything except Photoshop performance. It doesn't run the same code on both platforms. That's fine if you use Photoshop, but if you use other programs, its a fairly meaningless comparison of processor speed. SPEC, in contrast, runs identical real world code (gcc and gzip, among other things) on each platform. This isolates CPU + compiler performance, without bringing into question how much effort went into a particular port of the program.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: SPEC benchmarks
by Get a Life on Tue 10th Jan 2006 22:13 UTC in reply to "RE: SPEC benchmarks"
Get a Life Member since:
2006-01-01

Apple used SPEC before with the introduction of the G5 (and comparing it with GCC/Intel rather than actual submissions to SPEC) when it suited their purposes. When it could not remain competitive it fell out of favor again. I don't put any value in Apple's own benchmarks, myself. In this case they're relying on Intel's own compiler instead of GCC.

I look forward to real benchmarks by third-parties and any officially-submitted SPEC scores Apple provides.

Reply Score: 2

libray
Member since:
2005-08-27

This promo is listed on their store page. I doubt that third party apps have been recompiled and pushed out as stable. This will prevent me from buying the new mac right now.

Reply Score: 1

all wrong
by sp29 on Tue 10th Jan 2006 22:52 UTC
sp29
Member since:
2006-01-04

funny whatever Apple does, it's still not good enough.

I heard complaints about the G4 and why it was so slow. Then they use the G5 and something was wrong with that. Now they use the newest Intel, might I add just like the rest of the industry and somethings still wrong with them.

Did you ever think, it's probably you that has something wrong.

Name the lastest Mac virus running on OS X? u can, but you can name them on XP from the last year.

Reply Score: 1

here is the battery life
by Reader on Tue 10th Jan 2006 23:07 UTC
Reader
Member since:
2005-11-08

I just called their customer service: 6h battery life!! Amazing. I want one now. This is the thinkpad killer.

Reply Score: 1

RE: here is the battery life
by Unbeliever on Tue 10th Jan 2006 23:13 UTC in reply to "here is the battery life"
Unbeliever Member since:
2005-07-09

And you believe that?

Reply Score: 1

RE: here is the battery life
by mjg59 on Tue 10th Jan 2006 23:49 UTC in reply to "here is the battery life"
mjg59 Member since:
2005-10-17

The T60 is quoted with a battery life of up to over 7 hours, depending on the battery options. I doubt you'd see that in the wild, but I doubt you'd see 6 hours in normal use on the Mac either. Once you're using the same chipset and the same processors, it becomes harder to find ways of shaving off power consumption.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: here is the battery life
by nimble on Wed 11th Jan 2006 00:01 UTC in reply to "RE: here is the battery life"
nimble Member since:
2005-07-06

Once you're using the same chipset and the same processors, it becomes harder to find ways of shaving off power consumption.

True enough, but proper integration of the OS with the hardware could make a difference. Power management on Windows is still a mess, mostly due to dodgy third-party drivers.

Reply Score: 1

motorla strikes again!
by broken_symlink on Tue 10th Jan 2006 23:38 UTC
broken_symlink
Member since:
2005-07-06

funny how there wasn't a single mention of motorola or the rokr e2.

Reply Score: 1

hmm
by Mellin on Tue 10th Jan 2006 23:43 UTC
Mellin
Member since:
2005-07-06

does it have a bios ?

Reply Score: 1

RE: hmm
by zephc on Wed 11th Jan 2006 03:04 UTC in reply to "hmm"
zephc Member since:
2005-07-06

All computers have a BIOS of some sort. However, they don't normal PC BIOSes which are dreadfully outdated, scrolling up it says it uses EFI which you can read about here: http://www.deviceforge.com/articles/AT9479223305.html

Reply Score: 1

ABI?
by nimble on Tue 10th Jan 2006 23:54 UTC
nimble
Member since:
2005-07-06

Did Apple use the opportunity of starting from a blank sheet regarding the x86 to define a clean and performant ABI?

Most importantly that would include a calling convention where arguments are passed in registers. Deprecating x87 and MMX in favour of SSE1/2/3 would be smart as well.

And what compiler are they using anyway, gcc or Intel?

Reply Score: 1

Ordered my iMac
by Snooks on Wed 11th Jan 2006 00:08 UTC
Snooks
Member since:
2006-01-10

I just bought a G5 iSight iMac from Amazon on Dec 15th. They have a 30 day money back guarantee so I'm returning it and ordered a Intel iMac from Apple which I should get next week. ;) :):)

Reply Score: 1

RE: Awesome
by re_re on Wed 11th Jan 2006 00:38 UTC
re_re
Member since:
2005-07-06

>I also think its a mistake not to release the Mini first(of which they would have sold thousands of quickly)<

That would be cool but do you really think that apple will make it's lowest end offerings perform on par or even above it's high end offerings?

I was hoping for the ibook first, but i didn't expect it for this reason, they can't have the ibook outperform the powerbook (now MacBook), the only way around this would be to release their entire product line at once but then they couldn't move the current product they still have.

Reply Score: 1

On the marketing of Apple.
by chicobaud on Wed 11th Jan 2006 02:49 UTC
chicobaud
Member since:
2005-08-14

When they (Apple) released the G5 Line they claimed it was the fastest computer on Earth. The specs-benchmarks were on the Apple website being compared with dual processor Xeon Machines, and benchmarked as fastest than Dual Xeons.

Well, now the Duo Core of Intel is ##(QUOTE) "the first Intel chip born of the new 65-nanometer process, which allows for the creation of transistors so small, you could fit a hundred inside a single human cell." ##(/QUOTE) meaning it's an "order-of-magnitude leap forward" for the IMac.

I guess an old Apple customer might get confused with the marketing sentences, or start doubting it if inteligence is applied. That's nanometer bull talk.

Reply Score: 1

slow as a snail
by happycamper on Wed 11th Jan 2006 08:28 UTC
happycamper
Member since:
2006-01-01

Ha,jobs ate his words, back in 1982 apple was running an ad with a snail with the intel pentium 2 logo on it. intel knew it was a matter of time apple would come to them.

Reply Score: 1

RE: slow as a snail
by libray on Wed 11th Jan 2006 15:28 UTC in reply to "slow as a snail"
libray Member since:
2005-08-27

"Ha,jobs ate his words, back in 1982 apple was running an ad with a snail with the intel pentium 2 logo on it. intel knew it was a matter of time apple would come to them."

--
I don't think Steve Jobs could have done that seeing that the pentium chip line did not materialize until 1993.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: slow as a snail
by kaiwai on Wed 11th Jan 2006 16:05 UTC in reply to "RE: slow as a snail"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

I don't think Steve Jobs could have done that seeing that the pentium chip line did not materialize until 1993.

That, and the fact that, lets face it, IBM and Motorola were the main contributors; from a business perspective, considering the size of both companies, would it be reasonable to assume that Intel could leap so far ahead of the competition as to make the PowerPC irrelevant? of course not - Steve went with the best solution at the time, and that was PowerPC.

The PowerPC only started to become long in the tooth in the last 5-6 years, so it I hardly see it fair to blame Steve for something that would have made sense 15 years ago, but no longer does.

Reply Score: 1

oh yeah
by happycamper on Wed 11th Jan 2006 08:33 UTC
happycamper
Member since:
2006-01-01

Now that Apple has switch to intel. I'll be waiting for a hack version of the mac os x to run on my AMD fx 55 cpu.

Reply Score: 1

dsmogor
Member since:
2005-09-01

Uhu, doesn't it mean that MS had to swallow their socks and compile their stuff on GCC?

Reply Score: 1

weckart Member since:
2006-01-11

Uhu, doesn't it mean that MS had to swallow their socks and compile their stuff on GCC?

No. SJ said during the keynote speech that they were using Intel's compilers. Stands to reason, since they are now using Intel CPUs. Intel's compilers are known to produce much faster code on Intel CPUs than GCC.

Reply Score: 1

Their fundamental problem
by alcibiades on Wed 11th Jan 2006 14:28 UTC
alcibiades
Member since:
2005-10-12

Their fundamental problem has not changed - they are a high cost producer, differentiated (in Porter's sense) solely by branding and packaging. But they have gained one great advantage from the Intel move: they can now run Windows on their hardware in native mode.

Everyone worries about whether they will unbundle the OS, but the opportunity is to unbundle the hardware.

Here is a prediction. Within one year we will see Macs shipping with Windows pre-installed, into the designer label PC maarket segment.

They will sell, and sell well.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Their fundamental problem
by TomB7 on Wed 11th Jan 2006 14:51 UTC in reply to "Their fundamental problem"
TomB7 Member since:
2006-01-03

Disagree.

They are differentiated by enhanced function: 1) much higher security 2) Much higher reliability 2) Much lower support costs 4) Better applications (eg Final Cut Pro, etc. I also think Firefox is better on the Mac ( I use FF for XP and OSX daily 5) People tell me the programming tools are much better on teh Mac (Cocoa/OPENSTEP).

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Their fundamental problem
by stew on Wed 11th Jan 2006 15:59 UTC in reply to "RE: Their fundamental problem"
stew Member since:
2005-07-06

1) much higher security

Is not a functionality of OS X, but just a consequence of low market share. In terms of OS-level security functions, OS X and Windows are pretty much equal (support for encryption, file premissions, protected memory).

2) Much higher reliability

In how far?

Reply Score: 1

RE: Their fundamental problem
by kaiwai on Wed 11th Jan 2006 16:09 UTC in reply to "Their fundamental problem"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

And that is the fundamental stupid part of your hypothesis - the whole IDEA of charging a premium is for the design AND for the integration between the operating system and hardware - THAT and THAT ALONE gives MacOS X the edge over Windows.

Whilst Microsoft is trying to juggle supporting every reinteration of an x86 PC, Apple on the other hand know EXACTLY what is in a Mac, they know that it won't change, therefore, they can extensively test knowing that there will be a consistant outcome.

If anything, the benefit to Apple, in the end will be the benefit of economies of scale which Intel has, in regards to processor supply - the ability to supply IN VOLUME and ON TIME, the latest and greatest chips, and it also gives Apple more resources to now spend on their operating system and hardware design rather than worrying about mundane things like chipset design, which quite frankly, is not a customer attention grabbing product differentiator anyway.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Their fundamental problem
by alcibiades on Wed 11th Jan 2006 17:39 UTC in reply to "RE: Their fundamental problem"
alcibiades Member since:
2005-10-12

"the whole IDEA of charging a premium is for the design AND for the integration between the operating system and hardware - THAT and THAT ALONE gives MacOS X the edge over Windows"

Maybe. People keep saying this. Though its not at all clear that "integration" means anything here. Yes, there are drivers in both OS X and XP and Linux. But it is not clear that an nVidia card is "more integrated" with a Mac than with a Dell, or with Mandriva, or even what that would mean. They work or they don't. I am for instance now working at a Dell running Debian, with a Radeon graphics card, a Seagate drive, some Crucial memory, and an Intel processor. I think the optical is by Toshiba. Right next to me is an iMac running the usual stuff, very similar in fact. I'm not aware of any special relationship either has to its hardware that is different from what the other has.

However, that is not the argument. The argument was not about running OS X on different hardware.

The argument was that the real opportunity they now have is to sell the hardware with a different OS, and the prediction was, that within a year, they will end up doing it.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Their fundamental problem
by kaiwai on Thu 12th Jan 2006 07:41 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Their fundamental problem"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

Maybe. People keep saying this. Though its not at all clear that "integration" means anything here. Yes, there are drivers in both OS X and XP and Linux. But it is not clear that an nVidia card is "more integrated" with a Mac than with a Dell, or with Mandriva, or even what that would mean. They work or they don't. I am for instance now working at a Dell running Debian, with a Radeon graphics card, a Seagate drive, some Crucial memory, and an Intel processor. I think the optical is by Toshiba. Right next to me is an iMac running the usual stuff, very similar in fact. I'm not aware of any special relationship either has to its hardware that is different from what the other has.

*shakes head* I shouldn't need to explain something this basic to a person I *assume* has atleast intermediate IT knowledge (why the hell else would a person hang around a site like osnews.com for?)

Each video card vendor will have a GPU from Nvidia, but each will have its own quirks to give it a performance 'edge' over the competition - in the case of Nvidia, they have to try and balance up supporting ALL those quirks - Apple on the other hand know what they've done, there is only one interation of, say the Nvidia 5200FX out there, meaning, there won't be any unexpected surprises out there.

Lets go onto the chipset; there is Via, SiS, AMD, Intel, BroadCom (Formally known as ServerWorks) - all these have their OWN quirks, to boost performance, provide better reliability etc. etc. and again, Microsoft has to support these quirks, coupled that with a video card quirks, there HAVE been instances of incompatibility - several years ago, there was incompatibility between Nvidia video cards and a range of Gigabyte motherboards, for example.

I'm sure you get the message pretty easily. With Apple at the helm they KNOW what products they've shipped, what hardware has been included with them, the possible bugs, quirks, and work arounds required - it would be NO different to Microsoft developing an embedded operating system for their XBox, and knowing that the OS will only ever run on that particular piece of hardware.

As for selling a computer with a different operating system, WHY?! to whose benefit? thats just bloody stupid! its right up there with SUN selling servers preloaded with Windows 2003.

The Mac is the COMPLETE platform, the operating system AND the hardware workign together in harmony, just as the reliability of a DEC VAX machine was DIRECTLY derived from the fact that the hardware and operating system departments worked together to provide a TOTAL, OUT OF THE BOX solution to the end user - with NO unexpected surprises.

Reply Score: 2

Is Yonah 64 bit
by rczik on Wed 11th Jan 2006 15:37 UTC
rczik
Member since:
2005-09-30

If not, this is disappointing.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Is Yonah 64 bit
by stew on Wed 11th Jan 2006 15:55 UTC in reply to "Is Yonah 64 bit"
stew Member since:
2005-07-06

It's not. 32bit glory.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Is Yonah 64 bit
by rczik on Wed 11th Jan 2006 16:56 UTC in reply to "RE: Is Yonah 64 bit"
rczik Member since:
2005-09-30

How does this jive with Apple's goal of making OS X 64 bit clean? Isn't this planned obselence for the new MacBook and iMac when 64 bit OS X comes out? When will that be?

Reply Score: 1

Whither an ultralight Mac laptop?
by StephenBeDoper on Wed 11th Jan 2006 16:37 UTC
StephenBeDoper
Member since:
2005-07-06

The MacBook pro looks pretty nice, but the weight is a tad disappointing - the last laptop I had which was that heavy was made by Texas Instruments and had a Pentium 90 in it. I was hoping that with the switch to Intel, maybe we'd see an Apple laptop that's comparable to the Thinkpad x series, or Sharp's Actius line, but no such luck.

Reply Score: 1

droool!
by mini-me on Wed 11th Jan 2006 16:57 UTC
mini-me
Member since:
2005-07-06

OK I will be a man of honor and admit - I was WRONG about my predition of no intel macs to be announced :-)

that being said...

I like
the new MacBook Pro
the built-in iSight
the speed
the new power connector


I dislike
that there is only 1 Firewire port
that there is no S-Video out

I am sort of wondering what will I do with the PCMCIA cards that I currently have....

and finally - I could care less about the lack of the modem :-)

Reply Score: 1

Pentium vs PowerPC
by jonas.kirilla on Wed 11th Jan 2006 18:25 UTC
jonas.kirilla
Member since:
2005-07-11

Bunnies and snails was about the original PowerPCs (601/603/604) and classic Pentium, IIRC. Any shortcomings of the G4 and G5, in competition with the P4 and Opteron, are non-valid criticism of the original PowerPC marketing.

Now, what's up with PowerPC? Who won? In what markets? (rhetorical questions)

PowerPC appears to be doing fine without Apple.

Edited 2006-01-11 18:25

Reply Score: 1

RE: Pentium vs PowerPC
by rayiner on Wed 11th Jan 2006 18:43 UTC in reply to "Pentium vs PowerPC"
rayiner Member since:
2005-07-06

The snails were about the G3/G4 versus the Pentium II. The PII won back then too, according to measures like SPEC, but back then, Apple folks tried to denounce the perfectly good benchmark every way they could.

The interesting thing about the Intel switch is that now a lot of Mac folks are playing it off as "x86 got dramatically better, and now is beating PowerPC." Yet, if you look in the x86 world, nobody is super-excited about Yonah. In terms of performance per core, Yonah simply achieves parity with the years old Pentium-M and the Opteron. The simple truth is that x86 has been ahead of PowerPC, on the desktop, for quite a long time. Whether it was the G3's crappy FPU, the G4's crappy FPU and slow memory bus, or the G5's crappy integer performance, the desktop PowerPC chips of the last decade have all had extremely glaring microarchitectural flaws, not to mention a generally lagging clock-speed.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Pentium vs PowerPC
by TomB7 on Wed 11th Jan 2006 19:35 UTC in reply to "RE: Pentium vs PowerPC"
TomB7 Member since:
2006-01-03

The lagging clock speed was the killer; you can only make up for so much by using RISC.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Pentium vs PowerPC
by rayiner on Wed 11th Jan 2006 21:38 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Pentium vs PowerPC"
rayiner Member since:
2005-07-06

You don't make up much at all by using RISC. That's the basic fallacy that people have to get over. You save a little bit of die space, a few stages in the pipeline, and allow some better register allocation. On the other hand, your code density takes a dive, along with your i-cache hit rate.

The performance differences between the Gx and x86 chips aren't due to RISC vs CISC. The G4's FPU performance is bad not because its RISC, but because it's got a single FPU pipeline. The G5's integer performance isn't bad because its RISC, but because its got a long pipeline, only two integer units, and two-cycle latency for simple instructions. Conversely, the G5's floating-point performance isn't great because its RISC, but beceause its got two symmetric FPU pipes each of which are capable of a multiply-add per cycle.

In the end, it comes down to the design of the CPU. PowerPC vs x86 is irrelevent.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Pentium vs PowerPC
by nimble on Wed 11th Jan 2006 23:39 UTC in reply to "RE: Pentium vs PowerPC"
nimble Member since:
2005-07-06

In terms of performance per core, Yonah simply achieves parity with the years old Pentium-M

Yep, and that's because Yonah really is "just" a dual-core Pentium-M with a beefed-up SSE unit. Not that the Pentium-M isn't a very decent chip anyway, but the new processor names and the hype to go with them should really have waited for the new micro-arch debuting in the summer.

Reply Score: 1