"Steve Jobs foiled the rumormongers once more at last week's Macworld Expo. Most observers expected that Apple would announce the first Macintosh computers that partake of powerful and efficient Intel Core Duo microprocessors, the same used by top-notch Windows machines. But almost no one thought that the first of these machines would be the most popular Macs that Apple makes - the elegant desktop iMac and the workhorse PowerBook laptop (now renamed the MacBook Pro). After his keynote, he spoke to NewsWeek's Steven Levy, between sips of tea."
Post a Comment
Member since:
2005-06-29
Member since:
2005-07-07
Member since:2005-07-06
You should call someone at NBC or whoever makes The Apprentice. 
Member since:2006-01-06
Member since:
2005-07-23
of the rumor guys. I mean, speculation is healthy and shows how strongly people like your product and these are your very core customers. Have we forgotten their lawsuits and FUD?
I believe Apple(as much as I dislike how they treat their customers) has some great things coming in the next couple of months and years.
It's ok, Linux-based OS's are proving to be what the MacOS can't be.
Edited 2006-01-17 16:01
Member since:
2005-07-06
I'm a bit suspicious about this. I mean, there was no mention about this at the keynote or on Apple's web site, which is pretty important for a portable. Jobs says that it's about the same which in normal language means that it's not as good.
I suppose it doesn't really matter at the end of the day. I mean, I usually use my iBook at home, plugged in and when I bring it anywhere, I usually bring the power cord with me and I am usually close enough to a power supply.
Judging from Ars Technica's review of the Intel iMac, the MacBook Pros are gonna kick the PowerBook's and iBook's arses in performance!
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:2006-01-08
Judging from Ars Technica's review of the Intel iMac, the MacBook Pros are gonna kick the PowerBook's and iBook's arses in performance!
Sure it has a extra core, but the new MacBookTels still are less performing than a Dual 2 Ghz G5 PowerMac!, that's really amazing.
Man, Quad can be gotten for around the same price as MacPook Pro and be more than twice as powerful.
I'll get a iBook for mobile uses, a Quad is the machine to have.
Member since:2005-07-06
Sure it has a extra core, but the new MacBookTels still are less performing than a Dual 2 Ghz G5 PowerMac!, that's really amazing.
The Ars review is uncharacteristically bad. They compared a dual 2.0 iMac with 512MB of RAM to a dual 2.5 PowerMac with 4.5 GB of RAM! The results that were obtained are almost meaningless. The xBench tests are suspect, since they show an extremely low user-interface score for the IntelMac, while the reviewer notes that the Intel Mac felt snappier than the iMac G5. The two results are contridictory.
The Rosetta benchmarks are particularly egregious. Since Rosetta is a JIT, it uses a lot of RAM. 512MB is already marginal for OS X, and benchmarking Rosetta in that configuration, with a memory-hungry app like Photoshop is pure folly. If you look at macnn.com's forums, you'll see that somebody with a 20" iMac Duo tested a popular Photoshop benchmark and ended up getting results comparable to a dual 2.0 G5, even under emulation.
As for the Quad versus the MacBook Pro: completely ydifferent markets. Laptops are simply more expensive --- a Quad aces a PowerBook too, but doesn't cost appreciably more. Also consider that the TDP of the Yonah chip in the MacBook Pro is perhaps 1/8 of the combined TDPs of the dual-970MPs in the Quad!
Edited 2006-01-17 17:18
Member since:2005-07-06
It's unfair to compare a desktop chip to a laptop chip. The laptop processors are underpowered because of heating and power efficiency also that laptop processors are designed for power efficiency. If you did a performance test of laptop and a desktop machine running at same frequency and ram, same bus speed etc. desktop would beat the laptop by miles.
Member since:
2006-01-08
Didn't fool me, we Mac users all knew the G4 line of laptops were in dire need of replacement.
The iMactel was expected because it's guts are easy to get too and make modifications.
We also knew the PowerMacs were not going because professionals can't get their hands on Mactel versions of pro apps yet.
It's these dumbarse rumor monkeys who spread "Apple is going to sell Plasma TV's" like Gateway and Dell
Really folks Plasmas? sheesh how lame can you get?
Apple's stock would drop in a heartbeat, because selling TV's froma computer maker is a sign of desperation.
It's about as dumb as a iPhone. (the market is saturated)
Member since:2006-01-01
Apple's stock would drop in a heartbeat? Doubtful. Apple, like Google, has become one of those hip companies where if they opt to enter a market, there would be no shortage of fanfare and anticipation for its reinventing the product, no matter how middling the actual results were. If Apple was going to sell Plasma TVs, people would be engaged in supposition over iTMS integration and deals with networks over subscription television services, and proclaiming Apple as obsoleting the TiVo.
Member since:
2005-07-06
Member since:
2006-01-01
Member since:
2005-09-03
I remember having heavily debated one or two years ago on OSnews about G4 vs PentiumM...the MAC zealots were so sure that they have the upper hand on mobility and performance. I've been saying all along that Intel PentiumMs give us better performance. Looks like in order to get a reasonable performance on you portables Apple has resorted to using Intel chips. Yonah (CoreDuo) is based on PentiumM's architecture, yet it is better than g5 in terms of performance. A word to former PowerPC zealots - future Intel CoreDuo users: welcome to the PC world..you can finally discover what performance means!! (on x86)hehehe
Member since:2006-01-09
I remember having heavily debated one or two years ago on OSnews about G4 vs PentiumM...the MAC zealots were so sure that they have the upper hand on mobility and performance. I've been saying all along that Intel PentiumMs give us better performance.
----------------------------------
I'm sorry about the accident
Well thats the only way I can explain it, you've being in a coma for two years and have not being able to keep up with present news
When you was debating, as you said two years ago, it was against the then G4 chip nearing its end on the desk top and the new PM
Now jump two years and we still have the G4 due to not being able to put a G5 in a laptop vs........
Yes an entirely new processor, have you caught the big flaw with your argument yet?
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:
2005-11-18
Just speculation, but I imagine the reason for the lack of battery claims is because they're still tuning the power management aspect of the OS.
Considering the TomsHardware article on the Core Duo, one suspects it won't be that bad (although admittedly the Pentium M (Dothan) did a bit better)...
Member since:
2005-06-29
it can't be all hatred, he was making jokes about rumor sites in the keynote last week..
he made his own podcast called super secret apple rumors, and speculated that the next ipod would be 8 lbs and have a 10 inch screen, or so his good sources inside apple said..
it was pretty funny.
Member since:2005-08-28
Member since:
2005-07-06
Member since:2006-01-09
Hopefully maybe - but even as a Apple user I wonder why the have not made it easier to load windows onto it, surly as long as they are selling the machine, then if a user wants to load on a different OS then I fail why they should be concerned
I only sticking point is if some drivers or peripherals react badly to the Apple machine due to incapabiliities with the different OS that they could try to blame Apple and create abit of a smell
Member since:2005-07-06
Hopefully maybe - but even as a Apple user I wonder why the have not made it easier to load windows onto it, surly as long as they are selling the machine, then if a user wants to load on a different OS then I fail why they should be concerned
Firstly because they were going to build whatever machine they wanted to build. Windows compatability isn't really a design point for Apple, and while Windows may well eventually be bootable on the machine, it's not their problem, and not their market.
Second, for most Windows apps, a future version of either VirtualPC or VMWare will be the "preferred" method of running Windows applications. The biggest potential stickler will be games, and we'll just have to wait and see about that.
But, simply, they're not building PC's, they're building Macintoshes, and the fact that they run an Intel chip is simply a detail. Windows is not a priority for them.
Member since:2006-01-09
Member since:2005-07-06
Firstly because they were going to build whatever machine they wanted to build. Windows compatability isn't really a design point for Apple, and while Windows may well eventually be bootable on the machine, it's not their problem, and not their market.
Not to mention Apple seems to have taken great pains as too appear non-competetive in Microsofts OS space. Lets face it if Mac OS lost MS Office it would be a tough row to hoe for OS X.
Member since:2006-01-09
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:
2005-11-10
Member since:2006-01-03
