Home > Apple > Apple Planning Intel-Ready iBook Debut for January

Apple Planning Intel-Ready iBook Debut for January

Apple 129 Comments

The same sources that correctly predicted the Mac Mini and the photo iPod, have now confirmed that Apple will release an Intel-based iBook in January 2006, 6 months ahead of schedule. These new iBooks will most likely use Intel’s forthcoming Yonah processors, and will be priced as much as $200,- (E170,-) lower than current offerings.

About The Author

Thom Holwerda

Follow me on Mastodon @[email protected]

129 Comments

  1. 2005-11-17 8:28 pm
    Eugenia Loli

    I want an x86 64bit dual-core powerbook, boo-hoo. :'(

    • 2005-11-17 8:34 pm
      Lazarus

      “I want an x86 64bit dual-core powerbook, boo-hoo. :'(”

      As do I 🙁

      Edited 2005-11-17 20:38

    • 2005-11-17 8:36 pm
      Tuishimi

      I had hoped the mini would be first. ;) Those laptops are too rich for my blood. Still, this is excellent news. I bet the major software vendors that Apple keeps in touch with have also completed making the necessary software adjustments for their apps to run on Intel.

    • 2005-11-17 10:05 pm
      DevL

      Well, you’re not getting one until Conroe or Merom. Yonah is only 32-bit so you’ll have to sit tight until Intel smiles upon you. I, for one, will not buy any Macintel without a 64-bit CPU and I find it (technologically) frustrating that Apple will release any 32-bit Macintels at all. You can make certain optimizations if you know that a program will not need to run on a 32-bit computer.

      Edited 2005-11-17 22:09

      • 2005-11-17 11:33 pm
        rayiner

        That’s a good point. I’m a bit surprised Yonah is still only 32-bit, actually. People can say what they will about 4GB of RAM and whatnot, but x86-64 is a lot more than that. It puts in a decent amount of registers, gets rid of segmentation and other yucky stuff, and gets rid of that awful stacked register file. Amd64 is just awesome — 32-bit x86 is dead to me.

        • 2005-11-18 2:02 pm
          DevL

          I hear you, I hear you! The last 32-bit CPU I got came with the Mac Mini. It’ll be 64-bits and up from now on (well, with the poossible exception of the odd PDA if Palm gets their act together and stops this Windows nonsense).

    • 2005-11-18 2:35 am
      mario

      Is this also developed in Haifa, then?

      If it is, I find this situation very interesting:

      – PowerPC CPUs are really cool, lots of performance for low power consumption – that is, if we speak of G3 and G4. Apple looked further in the future, and they didn’t see the possibility to scale the architecture while retaining low power consumption. So they turn to…

      – Intel’s x86, which has acquired a reputation for hotness, in the most negative sense of that word, in the last years. The P4 core is catastrophically hot. But Intel has a crown jewel (or hidden weapon, as you wish) in the Pentium M core, developed by a very distant branch of the company.

      – And now it appears that future developments of Inter x86 will be based on the Pentium M rather than P4. And thanks to this, Intel has managed to lure Apple to it’s side, something that nobody thought, only 3 years ago, would happen.

      How strange and surprising life is.

  2. 2005-11-17 8:36 pm
    zima

    I thought they will cost S200 less…

    • 2005-11-17 8:38 pm
      Thom Holwerda

      I thought they will cost S200 less…

      The Euro sign isn’t supported by all browsers, so that’s why I use ‘E’ instead of the real Euro sign.

      • 2005-11-17 10:06 pm
        DevL

        Use the standard ‘EUR’ instead as in EUR350 (compare with USD199 etc).

  3. 2005-11-17 8:37 pm
    Anonymous

    I’m holding back on buying a laptop and waiting for a nice powerbook from apple. my 3 years old compaq laptop is barely surviving.

  4. 2005-11-17 8:40 pm
    Guppetto

    I want to see how Apple is going to price these notebooks. It’s going to be hard to convince me that a 3 Ghz iBook is worth more than a 3 Ghz Notepad. OSX is pretty, but it’s not that pretty. Apple usually has priced their notbooks with a 400 to 500 dollar premium over past PC equivalents (ie – iBooks at $1200 with performnce matching $700 Dell equivalent). However, you can bet that the competiton is going to put the numbers side by side with iBooks and ask consmers why they should pay more.

    Now if apple comes in with a bottom price of $700 bucks for a 12in widescreen iBook, $900 for the 14in widescreen iBook and $1200 for the 15incher, then things might get interesting.

    • 2005-11-17 8:43 pm
      Lazarus

      Well, I’ve been watching Apple’s prices for their various offerings for the last three years, and everytime they update a given line, the prices for their latest stuff have consistently been somewhat lower in price. $200 seems a bit much from what I’ve seen, but not entirely unbelievable.

      I’d expect them to be $80 to $100 cheaper. Time will tell.

      • 2005-11-17 8:50 pm
        kellym

        Apple’s $1000 iBooks could easily be priced $200 less and Apple would still be in the black. A $700 iBook featuring the planned Intel chip will likely allow Apple to keep their price advantage … or at least a price equivalency with the rest of the industry.

        • 2005-11-17 9:01 pm
          Lazarus

          Here’s hoping that they will be priced $200 less. ;^)

    • 2005-11-17 10:19 pm
      Anonymous

      If you think being “pretty” is the only thing that makes Mac OS X better than WinXP, then you probably only use your computer to browse the internet and play video games. Either that or your love of viruses, malware/spyware, and OS crashes makes you want to stick with MS.

  5. 2005-11-17 8:45 pm
    kellym

    Apple laptops are currently the only product(s) in Apple’s lineups that are priced grossly out of sync with the rest of the industry… and this is the case even if you factor in the bundled software that most PC users fail to include when making “accurate” price comparisons against Apple computers.

    Edited 2005-11-17 20:46

  6. 2005-11-17 9:12 pm
    Anonymous

    Hope the dual-coreness is enough to make up for the fact it is a pokey X86 architecture.

    • 2005-11-17 9:19 pm
      rayiner

      Yonah is a very fast implementation of a crappy architecture ;) Clock-for-clock, it’s the fastest commodity CPU for integer code. If Yonah comes out at 2.2 GHz at the top-end, and has zero performance improvement over Dothan at the same clock-speed, you’ll have your proverbial PowerBook with dual 3GHz G5s.

      • 2005-11-17 9:26 pm
        Anonymous

        “you’ll have your proverbial PowerBook with dual 3GHz G5”

        The G5 is VERY fast chip. I’ll believe your claims when the benchmarks start to come in.

        • 2005-11-17 11:26 pm
          rayiner

          The G5 is a very fast chip, clock for clock, compared to previous-generation x86 chips. Just look up the SPEC scores on the Pentium M. About 1850 integer. IBM claims the 2.5 GHz 970MP gets 1438, while the 2.2GHz 970FX sits at around 1000 (on the published results). This is a laptop chip. It’ll be running integer code most of the time. The Pentium-M is an absolute integer monster.

          • 2005-11-18 5:17 pm
            Arun

            I agree with rayiner. The pentium Ms are superb chip much better than the netburst pentium 4s. That is why most of the newer chips from intel are based on similar cores.

            I am waiting eagerly for a Pentium M powerbook to replace my G4 powerbook.

  7. 2005-11-17 9:13 pm
    Pasha

    I see everybody concerned about 3rd party apps, but what about iLife ?

    In the consumer market iLife applications are what a Windows user might come envious about and can be pushed to switch. So, I think iLife as intel-native (non rosetta app) should be mandatory to gain success.

    What do you think/know about? I’m holdin’ back buying a Mac now but I always see a lot of talking about MacOSX but not so much regarding iLife. Any clues?

    Edited 2005-11-17 21:14

    • 2005-11-17 9:28 pm
      Anonymous

      Does it at all seem reasonable that any software currently being sold for PPC Macs that’s developed by Apple wouldn’t have an Intel binary produced?

      Apple wants people to see the switch as an advantage for many reasons, and cheaping out by not recompiling their own applications for OS X seems like an incredibly stupid thing to do, as it might be penny-wise and pound-foolish to not spend the minor amount of time and effort to make an Intel binary of them.

      If Apple internal developers have been following their own guidelines of using the system API for certain types of things that are processor-specific, then the conversion is very easy: the biggest issue when porting something is the differences in API, once you’ve got minor issues with endianess taken care of. In other words, this isn’t a problem ;)

      Jonathan Thompson

    • 2005-11-17 9:37 pm
      kellym

      “What do you think/know about? I’m holdin’ back buying a Mac now but I always see a lot of talking about MacOSX but not so much regarding iLife. Any clues?”

      You’re looking in the wrong places.

      You don’t see many non-Mac sites focusing on iLife because these sites only see a direct need for a replacement for Windows.

      The lack of iLife coverage can most easily be attributed to the notion that they simply don’t know what they’re missing.

      • 2005-11-17 9:43 pm
        Pasha

        “You’re looking in the wrong places.”

        Can you point me to some good place?

        I would like to know more on this topic.

      • 2005-11-17 10:14 pm
        Thom Holwerda

        iLife is a suite of apps that individually aren’t all that great– the fact that makes them great is how they are integrated with one another and with the Mac OS.

        For instance, iLife apps are slow behemoths and have some serious design flaws as well; most notably the fact that they ‘duplicate’ photos and songs, so when you have a directory filled with music that you want to play with iTunes, iTunes copies them into its own db/dir structure. Apple apparantly wants you to delete the directory those songs came from– something I do not like because I want to be able to easily browse to my songs using an ordinary file manager. I *hate* how I have to load iPhoto (slow!) in order to show just one picture to someone. Why doesn’t iPhoto allow me to organize my own directory structure in the way *I* deem logical?

        However, the integration between the iLife apps and the OS is great. It’s a big part of the Mac experience, that’s for sure.

        Edited 2005-11-17 22:16

        • 2005-11-17 10:18 pm
          kellym

          Thom is not giving a good representation of iLife at all. He makes the apps sound uninteresting and flawed.

          Here is a better description:

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ILife

          • 2005-11-17 10:22 pm
            Thom Holwerda

            Thom is not giving a good representation of iLife at all. He makes the apps sound uninteresting and flawed.

            So you are saying I’m lying about iLife apps having their own DBs and dir structures?

            Look, iPhoto is just a photo managing app, of which there are a million others, some better, some worse. Same for iTunes. I don’t get the big deal about iLife’s individual apps. iLife’s strength is integration– not the individual apps.

          • 2005-11-17 11:19 pm
            Anonymous

            iTunes duplicating all your music is kind of a pain in the ass, since I keep my music on a file server that all my computers can access… But, you can turn this off in the preferences under the Advanced settings.

            I leave it on, because this way when I take my powerbook somewhere I have all my music still.

        • 2005-11-17 10:25 pm
          kellym

          “iLife apps are slow behemoths and have some serious design flaws as well”

          Not in my experience. I’ve found iLife apps to be pretty fast on at least consumer hardware and very fast on fast hardware. This is important when you consider what they were designed to do… highish-end multimedia on consumer hardware. And while no software is perfect, iLife’s “flaws” are so few and far between that most would be hard pressed to find them.

          “most notably the fact that they ‘duplicate’ photos and songs, so when you have a directory filled with music that you want to play with iTunes, iTunes copies them into its own db/dir structure.”

          Actually, there is an option to make to copy to a common database or for them to be distributed all around your hard drive willy nilly. I personally prefer the default approach.

          “Apple apparantly wants you to delete the directory those songs came from”

          I don’t gather than opinion at all from Apple’s decision.

          ” *hate* how I have to load iPhoto (slow!) in order to show just one picture to someone.”

          iPhoto is neither slow nor are you required to load it to view a single photo.

          “Why doesn’t iPhoto allow me to organize my own directory structure in the way *I* deem logical? “

          it does.

          “However, the integration between the iLife apps and the OS is great. It’s a big part of the Mac experience, that’s for sure. “

          While the integration is nice, the apps by themselves are a joy to use even if you never use or integrate any o the other ones.

          Edited 2005-11-17 22:27

          • 2005-11-17 10:32 pm
            Thom Holwerda

            Right, so I can have my *own* directory structure, say, like this:

            /Pictures

            |_____/CIW Weekend Thom

            |_____/CIW Weekend Annemarie

            |_____/AutoRAI 2005

            Etc, and then have iPhoto import those photos *without* duplicating their content in its own dir structure that uses numbers only?

            You can’t Kelly. Please, stop lying.

            Edited 2005-11-17 22:33

          • 2005-11-17 10:39 pm
            kellym

            Thom you are the ultimate troll:

            iTunes preferences/advanced/ “Keep iTunes Music folder organized”

          • 2005-11-17 10:46 pm
            Thom Holwerda

            Kelly, in your Apple zealotry, you forgot to read my posts.

            I want to be able to organize my dir structures the way *I* deem nescesarry! NOT in the way iTunes wants it! The option you just described:

            A) creates seperate dirs the way *iTunes* and not *I* want(s) it;

            B) only goes for iTunes and NOT for iPhoto.

            So, your option by far does NOT address my major concern. Please, you are forgetting that I am a Mac user myself; but contrary to you, I *will* point out the flaws in the OSs/apps I prefer.

          • 2005-11-17 10:51 pm
            ma_d

            So, are you saying that iTunes actually copies your music files from where you import them into its own space?

            IE, if I have 18GB of music on /Music, which is its own partition. And I import them to iTunes, my / partition will get 18GB fuller?

            Or maybe it’s just making a directory of its own and symlinking?

            It’d seem crazy to me for it to copy your music. That’d be very silly.

          • 2005-11-17 10:58 pm
            yoyo

            Why wouldn’t you just use the default Preview app to show a friend just one photo?

          • 2005-11-17 10:58 pm
            Anonymous

            It has the *option* to manage your music for you. With this option it will scrour your hard disk for music files and move them to the iTunes directory structure. This is only an option that i saw the one time i used iTunes.

            —

            Shawn

          • 2005-11-17 11:25 pm
            COSCOSCOS

            Thats the point I was making to Thom, but he is the eternal troll that doesn’t below on this board… as a poster and certainly not as an administrator. Is total lack sensibility in his original post but has total lack of professionalism in responding to me post correcting his mistakes is simply unforgivable.

            Edited 2005-11-17 23:26

          • 2005-11-17 10:41 pm
            Meace

            Kelly is talking about iTunes. You most definitely can have your own directory structure with iTunes. I have one.

          • 2005-11-17 10:44 pm
            kellym

            He said that this was not possible:

            Thom said:

            “so when you have a directory filled with music that you want to play with iTunes, iTunes copies them into its own db/dir structure. Apple apparantly wants you to delete the directory those songs came from– something I do not like because I want to be able to easily browse to my songs using an ordinary file manager.”

            Its this reason and Thom’s subsoquent response which gives justification for modding down administrators.

          • 2005-11-17 10:49 pm
            ma_d

            No kidding. I’ve never used iTunes, but I’ve never used a single music app that actually moves data. They all create a db listing locations, and get annoyed when you move your songs.

            Maybe Thom is having a crappy day.

          • 2005-11-17 10:47 pm
            ma_d

            Yea, that’s entirely possible. I don’t know if it does it but it’d look something like this:

            pics.xml:

            <pictures>

            <folder>

            <name>CIW Weekend Thom</name>

            <ref>/Pictures/CIW Weekend Thom</ref>

            </folder>

            </pictures>

            You get the idea. If you want, you could generate numbers for the name instead of the text string. That’s pretty easy too, although it’d be terribly silly.

            One could also just use symlinks, but it’s not as disk efficient and IMO it’s messy.

          • 2005-11-17 11:40 pm
            Anonymous

            “Actually, there is an option to make to copy to a common database or for them to be distributed all around your hard drive willy nilly. I personally prefer the default approach.”

            Sorry, but “willy nilly” is something I have recently not been able to get out of my head. I was thinking about it at work today, while waiting tables. It comes from “wylle nylle” in Old English, meaning “whether I want to or not.” Wylle: “I want.” Nylle < ne wylle: “I don’t want.” cf. ego volo, nolo < non volo in Latin. This will be modded down, no doubt, but I had to get this out of my head, and I hope I provided you with your Interesting Fact of the Day (TM.)

        • 2005-11-17 11:29 pm
          WorknMan

          Thom is not giving a good representation of iLife at all. He makes the apps sound uninteresting and flawed.

          Here is a better description:

  • 2005-11-18 12:26 am
    rayiner

    Regarding iTunes — it’s a decent enough program, don’t get me wrong. It’s interface breaks some fundamental UI design rules (not all functionality is available via the main menu), but once you figure it out, it’s easy enough to use. It’s ust not fundamentally superior to JuK or Rhythmbox, for example. Based on what I’ve seen of it, Muine even seems to be one step up — it looks great for people like me who like to listen to whole albums, not individual tracks.

  • 2005-11-18 1:03 am
    kellym

    We recently did a feature for feature cross platform comparison off all the iLife apps and it turned out that Windows equivilents for iLife typically cost between $200 and $250.

  • 2005-11-18 4:41 am
    WorknMan

    Regarding iTunes — it’s a decent enough program, don’t get me wrong

    I would agree that it’s a decent enough program, but a ‘decent enough’ program is not something that really inspires me to switch platforms. The way I see iTunes, it’s a bit better than the other Windows-based ‘jack of all trades’ programs like Real Player, MusicMatch, etc. But when I say ‘better’ in this case, I mean better as in having athlete’s foot is ‘better’ than having your balls crushed by a wooden mallot, but I really wouldn’t wish either one of those on anybody.

    The problem with iTunes is that it’s an audio player, mp3 organizer, burner, ripper, and online music store all rolled into one package. However, I think most people will use it 90% of the time as an audio player. And for me personally, when I launch an audip player to play my music, I don’t need an mp3 organizer, ripper, burner, and online music store running at the same time. If they were to make it modular so that only the parts that were needed were actually loaded (thereby hopefully making it faster) and got rid of the retarded UI, it wouldn’t be half bad.

    [quote]We recently did a feature for feature cross platform comparison off all the iLife apps and it turned out that Windows equivilents for iLife typically cost between $200 and $250.[/quote]

    That is very subjective. It really depends on the features you’re using. I think you could find every feature in iTunes in freeware Windows apps. While they’re not an integrated solution, as I specified above, this isn’t a bad thing, at least not for power users ;)

    As for iDVD & iPhoto, just give me a copy of Nero (about $70) and there’s all the features of that package that I need. And Garage Band? Hell, if I had a Mac, I’d probably be using ProTools ;)

  • 2005-11-18 7:01 am
    Celerate

    Based on this information and Rainier’s recent Mac review I’m really loosing interest in those things.

    I haven’t used a Mac so I’m relying on the accuracy of the information I’m getting, and based on what I’ve been reading recently I’m beginning to think I’m better off sticking with Linux, and when that doesn’t work, Windows.

    I could really use more sources of information. There’s no Apple store near here, no OS X users around here that I know of, and no Macs in local stores either. So I can’t find any of this stuff out for myself.

    I’m surprised and disappointed that there hasn’t yet been an article challenging these recent claims since I’m confused by all the formerly positive reviews Apple’s products have gotten and now I feel like I’m only getting the opposite.

    How come none of this information came out earlier? It seems now people are being much more vocal about Mac imperfections than they were only a few days ago when I still had the impression that Apple was making the closest things to perfect that money could buy.

    • 2005-11-18 8:35 am
      Anonymous

      As someone who has used Windows and Linux as both a casual user and serious developer for many years, I can say that although Mac OS X is not perfect desktop environment, it really is the closest thing to it.

      I’m re-convinced of this all the time when I discover more of the little things in it that make my like easier. Not just the “biggies” (e.g. Stability, Everything-Just-Works™, Spotlight, Exposé, no real-life viruses or spyware, a UNIX kernel), but hundreds of little things like:

      – High integration of apps

      – Spell-checking, a Dictionary&Thesaurus and Speech (great for proofing e-mails!) built into (almost) every text box.

      – Column-view (aka. Next-step view) in Finder.

      – Not having to de-fragment my hard drive.

      – Drag&drop everywhere! – including application installation.

      – Clean and inspiring UIs that don’t get in my way.

      – To open a Finder window at the location of my currently open document, I just Apple+click on it’s “proxy” icon in the title-bar and choose which directory level I want. Again, I can also drag this proxy icon as if it were a icon in Finder to copy it, make a short-cut, include it in a document or e-mail, etc…

      – When I move or rename a file, the “Open Recent” menu of apps is automatically updated if they refer to it.

      – A clean combined application launcher & task bar that is also capable of letting me run 30 apps at once and still be able to quickly see which one I want to switch to (if not using Exposé or Apple+Tab).

      – Writing letter “é” in “Exposé” was as simple as Option+e+e.

      – Coloured file and folder labels

      and so on…

      To re-iterate, you need to use Mac OS X for a while to really appreciate it. It’s looks are NOT skin deep!

      A note on the iLife apps:

      The “i” indicates that it is a consumer item. This means that it’s made to be accessible by your children, parents, grandparents and the general Joe User. That doesn’t mean that there not any good for all pro-users, but it does mean that some pro-users that do not want to change their ways or have very specific needs, the apps may not be suited.

      I personally love the way that iTunes and iPhoto allow me to organise my media. I don’t want to have to think in terms of files and folders to find and arrange the music or photos I want – if you want to do that, then go back and use Finder and Preview. I personally believe that the file-system method is unnatural and flawed.

      Just my 2¢

    • 2005-11-18 9:10 am
      Anonymous

      A couple things that I just HAD to add to my list of “little things” that help me:

      The word “driver” is not part of the average Mac user’s vocabulary; plug your new (or old) printer, scanner, camera, MIDI instrument, tablet, whatever (not just keyboard, mouse and monitor) and it will not only work but it will also give you all the settings and usually even a picture of it for it’s icon! And obviously, as for the system’s internals – the drivers are managed and updated all transparently!

      “Target Mode”. Need to access your computer’s HDD from another computer? (eps. in the case if it were broken or had no OS installed)

      Then turn the computer on and then press “T” and connect a firewire cable between the computers – you now have an overgrown firewire drive! No need to remove the hard drive :-))

      No pre-OS boot settings that need to configured. That is – there is no need for a BIOS setup. Even if Apple start using the x86 BIOS, I don’t believe that the end-user will ever see a BIOS setup – there is no need for it! A combination of a few key commands and a modern OS supersede it.

    • 2005-11-18 3:07 pm
      Anonymous

      “No pre-OS boot settings that need to configured. That is – there is no need for a BIOS setup. Even if Apple start using the x86 BIOS, I don’t believe that the end-user will ever see a BIOS setup – there is no need for it! A combination of a few key commands and a modern OS supersede it.”

      What about Open Firmware? it has lots of settings, plus an almost complete programming enviroment using the fourth language, I have always thought that OF was very complex, even when it was Open Boot on Sun Sparcs, but apple does do a good job of hiding it. PC BOIS seems simple in comparsion

    • 2005-11-18 9:49 am
      alcibiades

      You need to read the Mac newsgroups. macslash, macintouch etc. The real story is only admitted by mac users between themselves. This is where you will find out about noise, hardware incompatibilities, crashes etc.

      Not that the real story is so terrible. Its just a platform like any other, with its strengths, weaknesses, difficulties. The worst you can say is that its a bit expensive and a bit limited in terms of software. Don’t buy one if it means going without some dinners. If money is not tight, its a perfectly reasonable choice.

      The main problem it has, and you can see it here, is its advocates.

    • 2005-11-18 10:01 am
      Anonymous

      “The main problem it has, and you can see it here, is its advocates.”

      Yawn……….

      That applys to every platform there is and you’ve just, you’re as bad as those few zealots you are trying to bash

    • 2005-11-18 10:02 am
      Anonymous

      “The main problem it has, and you can see it here, is its advocates.”

      Yawn……….

      That applys to every platform there is and you’re just as bad as those few zealots you are trying to bash

  • 2005-11-18 5:00 pm
    Arun

    For instance, iLife apps are slow behemoths and have some serious design flaws as well; most notably the fact that they ‘duplicate’ photos and songs, so when you have a directory filled with music that you want to play with iTunes, iTunes copies them into its own db/dir structure. Apple apparantly wants you to delete the directory those songs came from– something I do not like because I want to be able to easily browse to my songs using an ordinary file manager.

    This is just plain wrong. iTunes does no such thing. Try taking a CD full of mp3s and importing them into iTunes. Now take the CD out and try playing the songs. They won’t play because iTunes just indexed the songs from thier original location. It won’t copy them into its directory sturcture until you select the Advanced-> consolidate library. iTunes never deletes the originals even after you consolidate the library. It never asks you to do so either.

    When you install iTunes it asks you if you would like to consolidate your music library. The default is no. If you did select yes. It might behave the way you describe it. If you don’t want that behaviour go to preferences->advanced-> and uselect the Copy files to iTunes music folder when adding to library. Also uncheck the keep itunes music folder organized. None of these are default options they are user selectable options on install and can be undone.

    Edited 2005-11-18 17:07

  • 2005-11-17 9:17 pm
    polaris20

    I want to see how Apple is going to price these notebooks. It’s going to be hard to convince me that a 3 Ghz iBook is worth more than a 3 Ghz Notepad. OSX is pretty, but it’s not that pretty.

    You’re basing the value of OSX merely on its appearance?

    • 2005-11-18 7:29 am
      Celerate

      I’m not jumping in to say that judging an OS by appearance is wise, but I think it has a lot to do with why people like it.

      A good example would be more recent versions of Windows:

      – Microsoft has been tweaking the colour scheme a lot since Windows 95

      – Win 98 had some slight colour variations from that

      – ME had new icons IIRC

      – Windows 2000 had more colour variations and more new icons IIRC

      – XP had many new icons and an entirely different theme

      – every version since XP has had tweaks to the themes

      – even media centre sports a different one

      – Vista is sporting very major ui tweaks which I would describe as little more than eye candy.

      – Stardock has enough customers to make their Windows UI tweaking (mostly eye candy) products lucrative.

      Then there’s Linux desktops which have also recieved much asthetic improvement. Most desktop environments have several themes and come with multiple different icons sets, the new oxygen icons for KDE even have thier own web-site, as did everaldo’s crystal icons and several other sets.

      The look of an OS is very important to users, especially potential new ones. An attractive UI is something people want to look at, if implemented well eye candy can attract your attention in a passive and peaceful way rather than with obnoxious blinking buttons and icons that immediately yank your eyes away from what you were doing against your will (such as minimized program buttons in WinXP which by default blink in a strongly contrasting colour when something happens in a program). Good UI design and eye candy can also be used to give you a better grasp of how your actions trigger a response in the OS, such as the poof of smoke I hear about in Mac OS X when you delete a file.

  • 2005-11-17 9:24 pm
    Mystic TaCo

    OSX is great, but even more I would be more than willing to pay the premium price just to have a Windows based laptop with some sort of thought put into the industrial design. If these things run Windows, I’ve definitely got my next laptop already picked out.

    • 2005-11-17 9:39 pm
      kellym

      “OSX is great, but even more I would be more than willing to pay the premium price just to have a Windows based laptop with some sort of thought put into the industrial design.”

      Well, if Apple prices their gear the way they do with the rest of their hardware lineup, there shouldn’t be any premium to speak of.

      • 2005-11-17 11:28 pm
        rayiner

        Your logical fallacy is showing. Your claim is couched on the fact that Apple hardware is fairly-priced because the software is worth hundreds and hundreds of dollars. If you buy an Apple laptop to run Windows on it, you can’t use that said software, so even by your convoluted logic, there is still a premium on the hardware.

        • 2005-11-18 1:01 am
          kellym

          “If you buy an Apple laptop to run Windows on it, you can’t use that said software, so even by your convoluted logic, there is still a premium on the hardware.”

          So you negate the included OS X and bundled apps advantage because you’re not going to use it?

          That’s like me buying the highest end PC and only using it for email and internet and then saying that I don’t need all the other stuff so the computer is $3000 over-priced.

          • 2005-11-18 2:07 am
            rayiner

            If the highest-end PC is the only thing Dell will sell you, then yes, to you, the PC would be overpriced. It would be as if Apple only sold PowerMacs — people would have a legitimate gripe that the machines were overpriced for most peoples’ needs.

            That is not to say that I think Apple should sell bare machines. I don’t see the point, and I think you’d be silly to buy a Mac then run Windows on it. My point simply is that you seem to think that you can just summarily tack $500 to the cost of the Mac because of the software bundle, and you don’t seem to realize that the actual value of that software to the buyer varies from $0 to $xxx depending on the person. To me, iLife is mostly useless. I’d much rather have gotten a machine without it, and had Apple take off the $80 or whatever it costs off the price.

          • 2005-11-18 2:33 am
            kellym

            “My point simply is that you seem to think that you can just summarily tack $500 to the cost of the Mac because of the software bundle, and you don’t seem to realize that the actual value of that software to the buyer varies from $0 to $xxx depending on the person.”

            No, I DO understand that. The problem I have is people’s continued interchanging of terms… using price when they mean value.

            “To me, iLife is mostly useless. I’d much rather have gotten a machine without it, and had Apple take off the $80 or whatever it costs off the price.

            You’re not alone. Many people would prefer to have the option to buy less and spend less. That’s the main advantage of the commodity PC.

            I understand that. I believe you understand that. Unfortunately, as long as people continue misappropriating the terms, you get people that continue to spread the myth that Apple sells computers at a premium when in actuality they sell them typically for less (or at least equally to equally equipped PCs) but they just give you fewer options to buy less and spend less.

          • 2005-11-18 3:38 am
            modmans2ndcoming

            Kelly, one mac user to another…… shut up please.

          • 2005-11-18 8:18 am
            rayiner

            You say you understand what I’m saying, then you go and spout of your crap about “Apple… sell them typically for less”. That would only be true if your typical consumer valued the Apple software bundled at > $500. Since you have no evidence of this, and there is much reason to believe otherwise, you cannot make any substantive claims about the value of Apple hardware.

          • 2005-11-18 2:20 pm
            kellym

            I’m not talking of value… I’m talking of actual price.

          • 2005-11-18 10:21 am
            alcibiades

            [Apple] sell them typically for less (or at least equally to equally equipped PCs) but they just give you fewer options to buy less and spend less.

            Oh dear Kelly, this is just nuts, I cannot believe you are still repeating this stuff.

            We have been through an exhaustive comparison of performance of systems and pricing of them in the last couple of weeks, and what it showed beyond any doubt, in detail, is that (a) there are no extras in Apple hardware (though there typically are extras in PC hardware compared to Apple) (b) there are minimal extras in Apple software (c) Apple systems, for equivalent performance and features, cost between half as much more, to double as much. In short, plenty to spare to buy any little bits of software on the open market if you want them, and still have a lot left over.

            I produced a couple of detailed comparisons, one at the high end and one at the low end. At the low end there was either better performance, lower price, or more software, often two of these. At the high end, there was a lot more, really a lot more (and better) hardware, and a lower price. We are talking extra hard drives, extra memory, a flat screen, dual graphics cards, speakers….

            It would be fine if you could produce numbers and cases to back up the assertion, but to simply repeat the same stuff over and over again after it has been directly refuted, well, its tiresome. Its not even good for Apple either. It makes everyone feel these guys are either disingenous or nuts. Its probably turning more people off the platform than anything else. You cannot want that.

            There are reasonable arguments for buying macs, form factor in the Mini is one, the OS and security is another. But when you deny obvious reality, you detract from them. You make people think this too must be just zealotry and misinformation. Right now, you’re doing more to turn people off Apple than any MS marketing campaign ever could.

          • 2005-11-18 11:27 am
            Anonymous

            Wow people are still running off that “macs are cheaper or comparable to pc equivalents” jazz

            Ok macs are nice and all. I am currently typing this from my ibook. Its a wonderful system. But people are going to have to face the facts.

            Macs ARE more expensive. This is not an argument that should drag on. I only own pc towers and i only buy mac laptops (and i will continue to do that). I have done so for years. I know my hardware, and I know how to compare prices.

            Granted my tower is custom built and it cost about one-third to half the price of a comparable mac machine. =) But geez even dell machines with comparable specs are cheaper.

            When it comes to pricing there are 2 type of mac followers. Those that preach the notion “you get what you pay for”. Then you got the nutcases. Those that believe that they truely payed more for the better product show some consistency, and are rdy to measure out the pro’s and con’s of the product they are affiliated. The rest suffer from a mac infatuation like no other.

          • 2005-11-18 2:32 pm
            kellym

            “We have been through an exhaustive comparison of performance of systems and pricing of them in the last couple of weeks, and what it showed beyond any doubt, in detail, is that (a) there are no extras in Apple hardware”

            I never said that Apple hardware is “more expensive” due to the supposedly higher quality of their components. Indeed they use some parts that or quality… some that are just average.

            My assertion is and has always been that a Mac is less than or at least equal in price to a PC of the exact (or as close as possible) same hardware, equivalent bundled software and equivalent OS.

            Apple does not require you to pay more for quality as is commonly attributed to them… (you can get the same quality in hardware on a PC). You pay more for an Apple because you are getting a lot. In other words, there are fewer options to buy less and spend less. But that does not mean that their prices are disproportionate to an equivalent PC.

            As mentioned repeatedly before… They are in fact less.

            Many people may not want a lot of the extra options Apple forces you to buy as a result of having fewer options to buy less and spend less, but thats an issue that relates to value… not price.

            The confusing part for most people is that when making *PRICE* comparisons, people will naturally include only those components that they want… which of-course relates to value… and is the PC’s biggest strength… (the ability to buy less and spend less) but THAT is not a *price* comparison… but a value comparison.

          • 2005-11-18 11:54 pm
            Anonymous

            I can easily build my own PC running linux, without useless technology like firewire, usb2, wireless, gigabit ethernet, And use free open source apps….. I can easily build a celeron based 256meg 40GB hard drive for less than the Dual-Dual Core G5 from apple.

            I mean Geez who really needs Dual Dual Core, or any of that other techno-babble.

  • 2005-11-17 9:39 pm
    Anonymous

    Because of Apple’s statements that they won’t do anything to prevent people from running other OS’s on the Intel-based Macs (including Windows) if the hardware is otherwise (except perhaps for the special OS X required hardware) generic x86 PC compatible complete with still using the same partitioning standard as the PC and the booting BIOS, I’m likely to buy an Intel Mac portable as my next system. However, I see no value in buying a 32 bit x86 processor system brand new when the 64 bit systems are already becoming common, and it’s only a relatively short matter of time when everything marches over to 64 bits, even if OS X is not included. I’m already using a dual P3-450 system from 99 as my main system, and I can wait a bit longer, as SMP makes things responsive enough most of the time ;)

    Would I buy one to run OS X? Not by itself, most likely. That’s not to say that I wouldn’t like that option, especially considering it’s likely Apple will improve some of the slower quirks about OS X over time. The curious thing about their proposed locking of OS X to their hardware without locking out anyone else leaves their hardware (at least according to what’s known thus far) as the most free choice hardware available for choosing the OS/software of your choice.

    Another thing that perhaps hasn’t been mentioned is that with using more standard x86 hardware and a limited subset of supported video cards, etc. is that alternative OS development could target the much more limited and easily configured systems: Apple would get the benefit of selling their hardware and OS as a complete experience, while also having people buy their hardware for alternative uses as well, on OS’s that don’t truly compete in their realm.

    Jonathan Thompson

    • 2005-11-18 3:45 am
      modmans2ndcoming

      What is interesting is if because of the move to BIOS, if Apple machines will be able to use any Nvidia or ATI card, making the upgrades much cheaper.

  • 2005-11-17 9:43 pm
    Asamoya

    I cannot wait for Intel iMacs ;) I will be so tempted to purchase one, when there is some Windows Virtualization Software out. It’d be really sweet to get rid of my PC and have one monitor/machine at my desk.

  • 2005-11-17 10:33 pm
    Smartpatrol

    Ibooks? Hopefully they release Imacs at the same time so that they have some time to weed out the bugs before i buy two.

  • 2005-11-17 10:35 pm
    Anonymous

    This is pure speculation: what do other OSNews Readers speclate:

    1) iBook will be released in Jan 2006

    2) The Power(MAC, Book) will have dual core version.

    I just believe that Apple will segment the market between the product lines; just for the short term.

    Any other opinions.

  • 2005-11-17 10:42 pm
    ma_d

    Ok, so that means I’ll be able to get the iBook I’ve wanted for around $1200; finally. I may finally buy a new laptop!

    Way to go Apple. Way to beat your own deadlines. Just don’t give us a buggy mess.

  • 2005-11-17 10:44 pm
    ma_d

    One of the key reasons I like iBook, not only the looks but a working Unix on a laptop: It comes in a reasonable size:

    The last thing I want is a 15″ notebook. I’ve seen several 12″ ibooks floating around, I know people out there want them. And I’m one of them.

    Besides, a 15″ notebook at xga is no better than a 12.1″ at xga; half this country is under 40 and can still see.

    • 2005-11-18 4:35 am
      Anonymous

      Well, I am over 40 infact I’m 49 and I can still see also, and just bought a new 12 inch iBook. I can see it just as good as any 15 inch display.

  • 2005-11-17 11:04 pm
    Thom Holwerda

    Why wouldn’t you just use the default Preview app to show a friend just one photo?

    Because then I’d have to scouer through the directoriers iPhoto has created for me; which are non-descriptive (uses numbers).

    So, are you saying that iTunes actually copies your music files from where you import them into its own space?

    Yes. You can test this on your Mac; after importing a few files into iTunes/iPhoto, you can safely delete the source files. The apps have copied the files into their own directory structures. You can browse these structures via Finder, but since they use non-descriptive names, you’ll have a hard time finding the correct files within these numbered dirs.

    • 2005-11-17 11:10 pm
      eMagius

      “So, are you saying that iTunes actually copies your music files from where you import them into its own space?”

      Yes. You can test this on your Mac; after importing a few files into iTunes/iPhoto, you can safely delete the source files. The apps have copied the files into their own directory structures.

      Have you tried unchecking the “Copy files to iTunes Music folder when adding to library” option (it’s under Advanced->General now, but was more prominent with earlier versions of iTunes)?

      If you turn this option off, iTunes does not copy your music to its own directory structure. iPhoto probably has a similar option, but I don’t use iPhoto.

      • 2005-11-18 12:57 am
        kellym

        Don’t tell him this… he’d rather just believe I’m a zealot. Its a whole lot easier to do think this way then to actually admit that Apple created a good set of apps.

    • 2005-11-18 12:59 am
      rhavyn

      he apps have copied the files into their own directory structures. You can browse these structures via Finder, but since they use non-descriptive names, you’ll have a hard time finding the correct files within these numbered dirs.

      Yes, the directory structures are terribly non-descriptive. How could you ever find the song you want in a directory structure like:

      <artist>/<album>/<song>

      And for pictures, those totally random numbers …:

      <year>/<month>/<day>/<picture>

      Why can’t we moderate down the “OSN Staff?” It’s not that they’re trolls exactly, it’s just that neither Eugenia or Thom knows what they hell they’re talking about the vast majority of the time. I mean, look at this thread, Thom complains about something which, for one of the apps, there is an option to turn it off. And he couldn’t manage to figure out those totally, completely, inscrutably non-description directory names … or something.

      Or are the “OSN Staff” afraid that everyone one of their inane comments will immediately drop to -5 like they should be?

    • 2005-11-18 2:00 am
      Anonymous

      Why don’t use just use spotlight? Then you can skip the whole iPhoto AND searching thru your own folder structure problem.

  • 2005-11-17 11:09 pm
    wilburpan

    Perhaps I can clarify how iTunes works. The default option for iTunes is to copy newly imported music files to its own directory structure. this is found in home/Music/iTunes/iTunes Music/(artist)/(album), with the exception of those albums you mark as Compilations, which are filed under …./iTunes Music/Compilations/(album).

    This will take up additional disk space, unless you delete the original music files after copying.

    You can turn this off, and store music files as you wish.

    You can also use the iTunes interface to sort your music files by artis, album, song titel, year, etc., within the program, and drag and drop file from withint the program to the Desktop, the Finder, or other programs.

    My question for Thom, or anyone else: is there a better method of organizing music files that would cause one to not use the default iTunes method of organization?

    • 2005-11-18 5:20 pm
      Arun

      Perhaps I can clarify how iTunes works. The default option for iTunes is to copy newly imported music files to its own directory structure. this is found in home/Music/iTunes/iTunes Music/(artist)/(album), with the exception of those albums you mark as Compilations, which are filed under …./iTunes Music/Compilations/(album).

      AFAIK, that has never been the default behavior. I installed iTunes on my Dad’s laptop and I had to manullay consolidate library while importing songs from a DVD backup. My sister installed it and clicked through the default install options and called me asking ehy her songs wouldn’t play when she removed the CD she imported the files from . I had to tell her to consolidate the library. Both of these were on XP. The OS X behavior is the same.

  • 2005-11-17 11:13 pm
    Thom Holwerda

    If you turn this option off, iTunes does not copy your music to its own directory structure. iPhoto probably has a similar option, but I don’t use iPhoto.

    Ah, thanks for that option, it was the one I was looking for. However, iPhoto is my major concern, since iPhoto is such a slow application. And iPhoto does not have this option :/.

    My question for Thom, or anyone else: is there a better method of organizing music files that would cause one to not use the default iTunes method of organization?

    I have a slight compulsion with keeping things organized, and I prefer to do it manually. And I know there are a lot of people out there that feel the same.

    • 2005-11-17 11:58 pm
      wilburpan

      My question for Thom, or anyone else: is there a better method of organizing music files that would cause one to not use the default iTunes method of organization?

      I have a slight compulsion with keeping things organized, and I prefer to do it manually. And I know there are a lot of people out there that feel the same.

      But do you actually organize music files differently than how iTunes does it? I used to be picky about organizing my music files, until iTunes came around. My feeling that is that iTunes does such a good job that I don’t feel the need to do this anymore.

      • 2005-11-19 12:26 am
        phoenix

        But do you actually organize music files differently than how iTunes does it? I used to be picky about organizing my music files, until iTunes came around. My feeling is that iTunes does such a good job that I don’t feel the need to do this anymore.

        I do. I put all my song info into the filename and directory name, I don’t use ID3 tags. My directory structure is …./Music/artist or genre/artist – song name.mp3

        Imagine my horror when I accidentally flipped the “Let iTunes organise the music folder” and it renamed all my music to …./Unknown Artist/Unknown 1234.mp3.

        I now have 30 GB of randomly named music sorted into various permutations of “Unknown Artist” on my file server. Thanks Apple. This is the kind of thing that needs an undo button.

        I prefer to keep my music sorted according to my own specifications, using the filesystem. That way, I can use different music players without worrying about anything. Thankfully, Apple included a nice uninstaller with iTunes.

        • 2005-11-19 8:36 am
          Anonymous

          Look, I do hate iTunes too. But what you’re saying is actual non-sense. iTunes DOES organize music using the filesystem. iTunes organized music is usable with ANY other music player. NONE of your points are valid.

          Last, you say you’re not using id3tags. Well, that’s clever. Congratulations.

        • 2005-11-19 3:54 pm
          Anonymous

          “I don’t use ID3 tags” — What are we supposed to bow down and kiss your feet? Worship the ground you walk on?

          ID3 tags are there for a reason. Don’t blame iTunes for your own stupidity.

    • 2005-11-18 3:30 am
      Anonymous

      While iPhoto does not allow you to organise your own photos, it is meant to be a basic consumer app rather than anything more in depth. If you are producing enough photos to slow it down, or want to organise your photos better, then you might as well move up to a “Pro” level app such as Portfolio, Cumulus or similar.

      I used to just use Photoshop and graphic converter to organise my photos, but I now use Portfolio to organise, and Photoshop for editing. It’s simple, it works, and I can organise exactly how I wish…

      marbiol dan [posting as AC because I;m not logging in on this machine…]

    • 2005-11-18 10:42 pm
      Celerate

      “Ah, thanks for that option, it was the one I was looking for. However, iPhoto is my major concern, since iPhoto is such a slow application. And iPhoto does not have this option :/.”

      I’m not saying your wrong, the only time I’ve seen iPhoto running was in Mac keynote videos, but in those videos the app ran faster than anything comparable I’ve ever seen for Windows. I use digiKam in Linux which doesn’t have as many options, so as far as that goes I can’t make a fair speed comparisson.

      Just how long does it take for the app to load up completely anyway?

    • 2005-11-19 3:30 am
      Anonymous

      QUOTE: However, iPhoto is my major concern, since iPhoto is such a slow application.

      What type of a computer are you using(proc, RAM?). The reason I ask is that my iBook only takes 5 seconds from clicking on iPhoto to viewing a photo(1.25 Ghz, 768 Mb, running iTunes, Firefox, Adium, Mail).

  • 2005-11-18 12:10 am
    thebackwash

    I’ll take credit for RE[5]: What About iLife?. I’m surprised it got modded up. OE is really a fascinating language. The poetry is DENSE though.

  • 2005-11-18 12:14 am
    snozzberry

    iPhoto works well, and I don’t consider it slow. As far as organization of my music or photos is concerned, iPhoto diverges from iTunes in a fairly important regard: it permits you to make destructive changes to those items (retouching, redeye, etc.) as opposed to nondestructive changes (start/stop time, equalizer settings) which can be put in metadata elsewhere.

    This isn’t trivial, and for this reason iPhoto keeps its own copies of your imported images (if indeed you have your digital photos stored elsewhere). The structure they chose was the least controversial I could imagine: year/month/day/photo. You can still drop your images into galleries of your own choice if you need to (e.g. making a book for printing).

    I wouldn’t call iPhoto a comprehensive digital image manager; in my professional work, I’d never use it. But iLife apps aren’t pro grade in any sense either. iTunes isn’t a mixer, iCal and Mail aren’t a salesman’s pro grade contacts manager, and the demographic is unambiguous. iMovie/iDVD neatly take care of my simple video production needs; sophisticated effects and I’m using Final Cut.

    OTOH, nothing in the OS requires you to use iPhoto. You can view a directory by thumbnail or select a group and view them as a slideshow.

    Am I perfectly happy with everything in iLife? No. Palm sync support is dreadful (as it is on Windows with other non-Palm contacts/calendar managers). Sherlock seems to have broken some of its alliances and makes me wish deeply that they’d never abandoned the plugin format Firefox snapped up.

    For the most part, it isn’t crap either.

  • 2005-11-18 12:55 am
    Thomas2005

    I personally could care less about using my own organization structure for my pictures because of what iPhoto allows me to do. What I do with my pictures is put the names of the people in the picture separated by commas and add the appropriate comments and/or keywords. This makes it easy to locate pictures of people, places, and events.

  • 2005-11-18 12:59 am
    Anonymous

    1. iTunes allows you to keep your music any where you please and organized anyhow you choose. You just need to configure it to do so… (Thom, the preferences are always a good place to start).

    2. iPhoto does not allow you to keep your photos anywhere you please or organized anyhow you choose. Aperture is supposed to have this feature, and I’m sure if enough people complain iPhoto can have this feature as well. (hint: http://www.apple.com/feedback/ ).

    2a. iPhoto loads very quickly on my Mac Mini 1.42 GHz. I don’t think it is so slow, but I can understand why one would like to have access to the single files without opening it.

    2b. You can assign keywords to images in iPhoto, you could perhaps use spotlight to find images you’ve keyed this way (I have not tried this, so don’t quote me on it).

  • 2005-11-18 1:22 am
    deathshadow

    Owning a mac, but DAMN these guys are insideous.

    One of my jobs is web design (one of many), I need to test for Safari compatability… Konqueror doesn’t seem to cut it in that regard as the two have forked too far apart; and of course PearPC is too slow for regular use (much less the headaches of getting networking running right). At the same time I couldn’t justify spending the money on a machine that would only be used to test one web browser… Which is ALL that would do… It’s not like I can run the Autocad (my other job) or test for IE6 on one… Much less play the latest games or the fact that MacOS just annoys the hell out of me from a ‘ease of use’ standpoint. (It just doesn’t seem easier to me)

    Now I find that I will likely be in the market for a laptop about when these come out… and it’s looking like a really attractive alternative. I can live without the high end games on the laptop, that’s what the A64 desktop with the X850 is for… With the Intel platform iBook I’d be able to run x86 linux, x86 Windows AND OSX native?

    Sign me up. They may have found the niche that would make a die hard, hardcore, full frontal apple basher take a serious look.

  • 2005-11-18 1:33 am
    Anonymous

    After Thom’s argument got shredded, it would be nice to receive an apology from him…. and not a backhanded “I may have been wrong, but you’re still a [insert explative here] apology, but a genuine, “You were right, I was wrong, I flew off the handle like I often do to you” apology.

    Anyone else agree?

    • 2005-11-18 1:35 am
      kellym

      Oops… forgot to log in… that was me.

    • 2005-11-18 2:33 am
      Anonymous

      No. While I do agree that Thom did act a bit immature for a staff member/higher up, I don’t believe any of your posts in this thread have been anything but trolling. You’d be wise to stop acting like a juvenile idiot, lest you make yourself look even more like one.

      -bytecoder

      • 2005-11-18 2:35 am
        kellym

        Pardon me?

        I corrected Thom, he insulted me for doing it.

        Thats all there is to it.

    • 2005-11-18 7:49 am
      dhazeghi

      Isn’t it a bit ridiculous to demand an apology when Thom was in fact right (iPhoto duplication on import)? True, he could have been a bit more civil about it. But so could you.

      Reasonable people can disagree whether the apps are useful. Having found iPhoto capable of driving my PB to the breaking point, I’m more with Thom on this one.

      As for Intel iBooks, so long as that means quiet and fast, I’ll be happy. Dual cores would of course be übercool!

      Just out of curiosity, what does a 12″ 5lbs. x86 laptop go for these days?

  • 2005-11-18 2:32 am
    A30Guy

    I find it annoying when one of the moderators of the OSNews site involves himself in a topic that is not related (or only marginally so) to the news item at hand. Particularly when the tone of the discussion involved having cheap shots at other contributors, and seems to have degenerated into a slanging match.

    Come on Thom! Keep a neutral tone and conduct peripheral discussions in another forum!

    • 2005-11-18 10:50 pm
      Celerate

      Or create a normal account and pretend your someone else 😉 .

  • 2005-11-18 3:50 am
    Anonymous

    You’re going to get your POS Intel notebooks that will be running almost all of your apps in emulation slower than current G4 machines.

    All your stupid whining has paid off!

    (Gotta love the junk Intel is supposed to be shipping in January…)

  • 2005-11-18 7:27 am
    Anonymous

    You use the euro sign after the number. (170€)

    Well, I often do the same mistake and type a dollar price like 200$. ;)

    • 2005-11-18 8:32 am
      Anonymous

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euro#The_euro_sign

      “Placement of the symbol is also an example of diversity. While the official recommendation is to place it before the number, people in many countries have kept the placement of their former currencies. This is the case in Spain and France, where people are reluctant to change to a system they find somewhat illogical (writing the currency before, “€2”, but reading it after, as in “deux/dos euros”). In France, therefore, € 3,50 is often written as 3€50 instead, following the conventional style for the franc: (example 22F96). Recently people start to write more often 3,75€ in France, Portugal, Spain and sometimes in Belgium. However, the official writing is € 3,25 in the entire E.U.”

  • 2005-11-18 8:59 am
    Anonymous

    If they’ve fixed those crippled one button mice in their laptops too.

    • 2005-11-18 9:03 am
      Anonymous

      That is a pretty dumb reason not to buy one, you don’t notice it at all when using a apple laptop

      • 2005-11-18 2:47 pm
        Anonymous

        hat is a pretty dumb reason not to buy one, you don’t notice it at all when using a apple laptop

        Why? It’s really inefficient to have to use two button emulation and even worse in Linux where you have to emulate the third button too.

  • 2005-11-18 11:12 am
    Anonymous

    I think Apple obviously wanted to achieve two things with thuis switch:

    1. Improve the future technical capability of their offerings

    2. Get the news out that they are doing (1)

    Looking over forums and sites I am glad that they have done both.It looks as though with the earlier than planned release of the MacTel iBook they will test the waters and show people something of what is to come.

    I have been a Mac user at home for three years-now own an iBook, macMini and G5 iMac. At work- where I’m a Network Manager- we use Windows; I wouldn’t recommend it any other way *right now*. I’m not a Windows basher. I like some of the products MS produce. I like hardware and have a P4 at home too running Server 2003. But I’m a realist. If MS don’t improve things with Vista (and there’s promise there) they might lose some customers. Mac OS X is very good. And the iLife apps are great (especially when you get them free with a Mac).

    But I’m also a realist the other way. Had Apple not done something about the ailing G4 line (and the lack of G5 PowerBooks) then it would have sunk them. Moving to Intel architecture is the best move they could have made and now we (the consumer) will have more choice for both hardware and software.

    Enjoy.

  • 2005-11-18 11:12 am
    Thom Holwerda

    Apologies? Why? Let me recap this discussion:

    I) you praised iLife into heaven;

    II) I put things in perspective, stating iLife is “just” a set of apps, with its share of flaws– of which I named two: [.a] they’re slow, and [.b] they copy files into their own DBs/dir structures;

    III) [.a] is a matter of opinion, and therefor we are both right when we say they’re either slow or fast;

    IV) I was partially wrong on [.b], and I admitted to being wrong;

    V) I stated that my biggest problem however with [.b] lies in iPhoto and not in iTunes.

    I do not see why there needs to be an apology.

    I produced a couple of detailed comparisons, one at the high end and one at the low end. At the low end there was either better performance, lower price, or more software, often two of these. At the high end, there was a lot more, really a lot more (and better) hardware, and a lower price. We are talking extra hard drives, extra memory, a flat screen, dual graphics cards, speakers….

    And in addition to that, I wrote this article not too long ago [ http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=11844 ] covering the more ‘mental’ side of this issue. Your comparisons, paired with that article, clearly have shown that ‘kellym’ is an Apple zealot pur sang, not willing to admit that Apple and its products have serious flaws here and there. Of which pricing *can* be one, but not nescesarily.

    • 2005-11-18 4:51 pm
      kellym

      “Apologies? Why? Let me recap this discussion:

      I) you praised iLife into heaven;

      II) I put things in perspective, stating iLife is “just” a set of apps, with its share of flaws– of which I “

      Revisionist history?

      I did not start with any praise. You started by making several false statements. I corrected you. You called me names.

    • 2005-11-18 7:00 pm
      rhavyn

      We can all read the thread Thom. You spouted a bunch of crap, most of which was wrong. You showed that you’re incapable of understanding the simplest of directory naming schemes. Why not just crawl away with your tail between your legs like most people who were so thoroughly debunked would?

      AND WE STILL CAN’T MOD YOUR CRAP DOWN BECAUSE YOU’RE “OSN STAFF.”

      And now here’s another post which is, effectively, ATTACKING a poster on this site. An “OSN STAFF” member attacking someone who reads the site. There’s a great way to grow your readership.

      WHY CAN’T WE MOD DOWN “OSN STAFF” WHEN THEY POST DRIVEL LIKE THIS?

      If “OSN Staff” are going to post in a personal capacity (you know, where you’re actually trying to express your opinion, no matter how illogical and incorrect it normally is) then we should be able to mod you down.

  • 2005-11-18 11:22 am
    Anonymous

    “I put things in perspective, stating iLife is “just” a set of apps, with its share of flaws– of which I named two: [.a] they’re slow, and [.b] they copy files into their own DBs/dir structures”

    It is “just” a set of applications (you are quite right about that), but I think saying they are “slow” is a subjective judgment. As I said above, I use an iMac G5 at home and find all the iLife applications launch and run fine. We could equally say that aspects of server 2003 are “slow”, but it would be just as subjective because the factors that need to be taken into account before passing that conclusion are too many to make a reasonable argument. If the iLife applications are slow for you, try the pro applications; or bumping up your RAM; or changing to a faster processor; or even swapping to Windows if you find that those tasks are faster for you there.

    The other flaw isn’t that. It’s designed that way. I haven’t a problem with it at all- so again it’s a subjective thing both ways. Your opinion is valid and there might be technical/personal reasons you would have it another way. For me, it is a null issue. I don’t mind. And it’s that fact that makes your perceived flaws merely subjective opinion. Many might agree with you- but many won’t.

    You made some good points though. Always something to think about on here- love it!

  • 2005-11-18 2:55 pm
    Thom Holwerda

    The problem lies in the fact that one cannot easily pick an x86 processor that matches a G4 or a G5– they have such distinct strengths and features and weaknesses that the term “comparably equipped PC” in itself is impossible to achieve hardware-wise.

    As for the software side of it– most of the iLife equivalents on the Windows or Linux platform are completely free. Picasa, for instance, is a free and very much comparable alternative to iPhoto– some say it might even give more features than iPhoto does.

    iTunes is freely available to Windows users, and Linux users (like myself) have applications like amaroK (on KDE) and Rythmbox (GNOME) and millions more (I myself prefer those two over iTunes because iTunes comes bundled with the music store features I do not use).

    Windows and KDE/GNOME have good enough office suites too– heck, Apple is completely reliant on Microsoft for providing them with Office functionality (again, iWork doesn’t count, even though I personally *love* iWork– and don’t even get me started on OOo/NeoOffice on the Mac).

    I have said numerous times the extra you get when buying an Apple computer is the complete and total integration of all the software and hardware– for me, that alone is worth spending money on Apple. However, having talked to many, many, many people about this (and even to the owner of the biggest chain of Apple shops in this country), a lot of people simply don’t give a rat’s ass about this integration.

    —

    The problem with pricing is always the subjectivity that comes with it. Price and value are intertwined with one another, and one cannot separate them.

    • 2005-11-18 3:10 pm
      Anonymous

      “Apple is completely reliant on Microsoft for providing them with Office functionality”

      Disagree. NeoOfficeJ is ok. Mellel is OK.

      “As for the software side of it– most of the iLife equivalents on the Windows or Linux platform are completely free.”

      There’s nothing as good as iMovie on the PC on the low end, or FCP on the high end. That’s why Adobe Premiere went extinct. That’s why Avid is running scared.

      “I have said numerous times the extra you get when buying an Apple computer is the complete and total integration of all the software and hardware”

      I mostly agree– and this is a much bigger thing than people realize. Nowadays, the other value of a Mac is the ability to get into low-hastle UNIX. Most regular Joes aren’t going to run out and get a LINUX box, and even if they did, they’d soon hit some “gotcha” headaches. WinXP, in my experience, is MUCH better than Win2000, which went down pretty much daily, but it still doesn’t multitask efficiently. Solid multitasking will become increasingly key in this increasingly multimedia driven world. And let us not even broach the subject of security….

    • 2005-11-18 4:00 pm
      ma_d

      Yes they can. The question was if Apple is overpriced I thought. Overpriced is charging a higher profit margin for the same, or equivalent, stuff compared to your competition.

      I think Apple does do that, but a lot of people say they don’t. If it’s a question of value, a Mac is unbeatable. The lifetime, as compared to a Windows PC, makes it a far better investment if you spend 3 times as much on it.

      Then you weigh in the fact that they’ve got a decent tech shop to take it too. The only other company I know of that provides this is Dell (CompUSA, Best Buy, and almost every small business is ripping its tech repair customers off). If it’s a question of value the Apple wins hands down, no questions asked.

      If it’s a question of what you can afford, then ok, Dell does have the lowest priced loss leader…

      • 2005-11-19 1:09 am
        rayiner

        I think Apple does do that, but a lot of people say they don’t.

        Anybody who says they don’t is ignorant. Apple’s profit margin, by their own admission is well over 20%. The standard in the PC industry is below 10%.

        • 2005-11-19 8:38 am
          Anonymous

          Does that include IBM/Lenovo and Sony laptops? Or maybe we’re talking about the very high quality offerings from ACER or other top-notch manufacturers?

    • 2005-11-18 4:49 pm
      kellym

      “As for the software side of it– most of the iLife equivalents on the Windows or Linux platform are completely free.”

      I agree with you as far as Picasa and iTunes are concerned, but those are just two apps of five… so your “most” claim is false.

      Windows equivilents to iDVD, iMovie and garageband cost approximately $200.

      Coincidentally, many PC users say that Macs are disproportionately price… aprroximately $200… the same price that they conveniently excluded for the bundled apps that come standard with the Mac.

      When making side by side comparisons, many PC users compare Windows XP consumer rather than Pro. Pro is more expensive, but a more accurate comparison to Tiger.

  • 2005-11-18 3:10 pm
    Anonymous

    I am a Mac user and I feel that praising the Mac to high heaven is not going to get you converts. It is also pointless arguing that a PC configured the same as the Mac costs the same, may be a little less or just $50 more. It is not working people. Just give it a rest. I am just happy I have a choice and I don’t have to use Windows for any of my computing needs or have to worry about malware, spyware or viruses.

    If the new Intel/iBook is any good some PC users will be intrigued and will try it out and may be even buy one.

    Give it a rest people. Stop this ‘mine is bigger than yours’ arguments.

  • 2005-11-18 3:20 pm
    Thom Holwerda

    Disagree. NeoOfficeJ is ok. Mellel is OK.

    NeoOffice/J sends shivers down my spine and makes me want to roll up in fetal position in the corner of my attic. It is horribly slow, doesn’t integrate *at all* with the rest of OSX, and no matter what people say, the import filters of OOo/NeoOffice still aren’t good enough to import and use complex documents– and seeing most of my professors insist on using .doc… Obviously this isn’t an error on OOo’s side– there’s only so much they can do.

    There’s nothing as good as iMovie on the PC on the low end, or FCP on the high end. That’s why Adobe Premiere went extinct. That’s why Avid is running scared.

    I don’t use iMovie, so I really can’t tell.

    Nowadays, the other value of a Mac is the ability to get into low-hastle UNIX. Most regular Joes aren’t going to run out and get a LINUX box, and even if they did, they’d soon hit some “gotcha” headaches.

    Let’s not get into that, but yes, I agree.

    WinXP, in my experience, is MUCH better than Win2000, which went down pretty much daily, but it still doesn’t multitask efficiently. Solid multitasking will become increasingly key in this increasingly multimedia driven world.

    I have never had problems with either XP or 2000– I do not use them, but the times I did use them, they were solid enough. My parent’s computer, a pretty slick and fast HT P4, runs Windows 2000, and that thing just runs and runs and runs and runs and runs… It’s unbelievable. I’ve had more crashes with my Mac than with Win2000. In the sense of having my Mac lock up once the past 12 months, and the Win2000 box zero times ;) .

    • 2005-11-18 11:14 pm
      Celerate

      “NeoOffice/J sends shivers down my spine and makes me want to roll up in fetal position in the corner of my attic. It is horribly slow, doesn’t integrate *at all* with the rest of OSX, and no matter what people say, the import filters of OOo/NeoOffice still aren’t good enough to import and use complex documents– and seeing most of my professors insist on using .doc… Obviously this isn’t an error on OOo’s side– there’s only so much they can do.”

      I remember reading about someone porting KOffice to OS X a long time ago. Since it’s written with C++ and Qt I don’t think it would be that difficult to have it integrate well and run natively. Since that first announcement of the KOffice port, the effort seems to have died, there’s been no news or publicly released port that I know of. Apple ported KHTML, why not KOffice?

  • 2005-11-18 3:48 pm
    Anonymous

    Pages does an excellent job of importing .doc files-even better than AppleWorks. I haven’t tried it the other way, i.e. export to Word yet. TextEdit will do the run-of-the-mill Word documents quite nicely. In fact it is the default application in Os X for opening Word files.

  • 2005-11-18 6:54 pm
    godawful

    look under preferences, under advanced, in the general tab, turn off copy files to ITMusic library

  • 2005-11-18 7:45 pm
    Thom Holwerda

    rhavyn:

    If “OSN Staff” are going to post in a personal capacity (you know, where you’re actually trying to express your opinion, no matter how illogical and incorrect it normally is) then we should be able to mod you down.

    You do understand that there are people her who would then mod me and/or Eugenia etc. down just because it’s us?

    Look, I made a mistake about iTunes having that option, I stood corrected, end of story. My argument still stands for iPhoto, so I do not see the big deal.

    If you can’t handle people having a different opinion than you do, or you can’t stand people like me making mistakes, then please, by all means, stop reading this site. You know, I wouldn’t care less to have you not reading this site. Really, you are not special to me. Neither of you are. When I have an opinion, I WILL state it, no matter if you like it or not. Just as you are entitled to your opinion.

    Kellym:

    You started by making several false statements

    I made one partially incorrect statement about iTunes– I got corrected *by someone else*, not *you*, I acknowledged my error, end of story.

    Deal with it.

    • 2005-11-18 11:23 pm
      rhavyn

      You do understand that there are people her who would then mod me and/or Eugenia etc. down just because it’s us?

      So? Instead we get to read your trolling? Most of the time I’d say you and Eugenia deserved to moderated down. If you have a problem with your voting system fix it.

      If you can’t handle people having a different opinion than you do, or you can’t stand people like me making mistakes, then please, by all means, stop reading this site. You know, I wouldn’t care less to have you not reading this site. Really, you are not special to me. Neither of you are. When I have an opinion, I WILL state it, no matter if you like it or not. Just as you are entitled to your opinion.

      You didn’t just state your opinion, you spread a bunch of blatently incorrect information. The directory structures iPhoto and iTunes use are descriptive. If you had said you don’t like the structure they use, that’d be one thing. Instead you choose to spread misinformation. I should be able to vote your comment down for that.

      And your opinions are automatically not equal on this site as long as we can’t moderate you down. Until you change that you have a duty to not troll and not spread misinformation.

      And I doubt your advertisers would be happy to know that the editors of OSNews are flat out telling people not to read the site. Driving traffic down, good strategy there. Are you still trying to get people to subscribe too?

      I made one partially incorrect statement about iTunes– I got corrected *by someone else*, not *you*, I acknowledged my error, end of story.

      No, you made multiple incorrect statements about iTunes and iPhoto. Or you are outright admitting that you’re not competant enough to figure out a very simple, straightforward directory naming scheme.