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.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since: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
Member since:2005-07-06
"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.
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:2005-06-29
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
Member since:
2005-07-06
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