Home > Apple > Apple Rolling Out New Macs Next Week?Apple Rolling Out New Macs Next Week? Submitted by phaceton 2005-07-24 Apple 37 CommentsThink Secret has details about updates to the Mac Mini and iBook, said to be going to be announced later this week. About The Author 37 Comments 2005-07-24 9:19 pm Quickly Steve sue some more of your fans, they are leaking more “trade secrets”! Y 2005-07-24 9:26 pm apple1984*FANBOY SCREAM*the sooner, the better! I was planning on buying a mac next month. Updated mac minis would be great (please please more video ram and a better chipset – 9600 please). 2005-07-24 9:29 pm WHO CARES IF YOU COULD AFFORD A MAC YOU WOULD OWN ONE ALREADY BUT INSTEAD YOU’RE USING YOUR LINUX/PIRATED WINXP COMPUTER WITH A TERRIBLE OSX THEME 2005-07-24 9:56 pm My friend and devote mac user just ordered a ibook G4. 2005-07-24 10:31 pm They can always cancel the order…Besides, there is always the Apple Price Protection program. 2005-07-26 4:02 am CrimsonScytheThat’s not ironic, only unfortunate… 2005-07-24 11:33 pm StephenBeDoperIt would be nice if the Mini update includes a drive better than the current 4200 RPM slow-even-by-laptop-drive-standards drive. 2005-07-24 11:35 pm I don’t use a Mac and neither should you. Nuff said. Troll #83251923Gee whiz the new format of this site sucks. Before all the other ‘bad’ comments were on a seperate linke so you could get a good kick – and ignore the dreary (wanna be insightful) comments. Now trolls world wide have to select -5, show all and look for red text. Well at least they kept the text red. Still though, please avoid overpriced gum drops like the plague. Troll #83251923 2005-07-24 11:39 pm whats the point of buying an updated mac mini, whenosx86 is coming out next year. i will rather wait than buy a mac mini thats going to be outdated next year. 2005-07-24 11:54 pm cduttonwhats the point of buying an updated mac mini, whenosx86 is coming out next year. i will rather wait than buy a mac mini thats going to be outdated next year.The x86 Mac mini you’ll be able to buy in a year or so will itself be outdated in a year.PowerPC Macs haven’t gotten any worse due to the impending switch. 2005-07-25 12:35 am BradActually, they have, since no matter what apple says, support for ppc macs will drop like a rock from the 3rd parties. Plus their will be plenty of “for x86 only” stuff from apple, even if they still support PPC.People buying macs right now more then anything just aren’t aware of the coming switch.Me, I want to see these new ibooks come out. I’ve been wanting to pick up a used 12 incher cheap for travel, so this will help make them cheaper. I wouldn’t put any money in a new mac. I’m still pissed my dual G5 will be legacy junk soon enough.Hardware may run fine, or not get slower, but that doesn’t stop it from becoming legacy or junk. I’m sure a lot of 68k macs became door stops overnight. 2005-07-25 3:57 am lrdeclpse*sighs* Why is it that there are so many FUD-slingers trying to troll around on News boards about the coming switch for Mac? How do you figure that the 68K macs became doorstops overnight? Their power supplies had a hard coded date that will not allow them to boot past 1995?Let’s time line this for you, FUD-Man.March 14th, 1994 – PowerMac 6100/60, PPC 601 introduced – First Power PC Mac with it, System 7.1.2 which was needed for the PPC machines.May 16th, 1994 – Powerbook 540, 68LC040 introduced. – Note that it was later the same year, a 68K came out. (Rock solid laptop, I own 3)Roughly 10 68K machines and 5 PPC machines in 94.June 1995 – First PCI Bus based Mac, 9500/120 intro.Roughly 8 PPC machines and only 3 68K machines in 95.1996 – Last of the 68K Machines discontinued from cat. – March 94 – March 96. Two years no matter how you slice it.December 96 – NeXT Acquired.January 1997 – System 7.6 ships. Supports almost all 68030 based Macs + all 040 based Macs.July 1997 – System 8.0 Introduced. Supports 040 Macs.November 10, 1997 – Gossamer – Putty G3 Introduced. (I own a Rev 2 266 Putty DT)February 1998 – System 8.1 ships, last OS to support 68K Mac. March 94 – Feb 98 – Four years of support for outdated systems.August 15, 1998 – iMac introduced.August 31, 1998 – Apple officially discontinues all support for 68000, 68020, and most 68030 Macs. Notice Some 030 and all 040’s still supported through official Apple channels.October 17, 1998 – Mac OS 8.5 ships. First OS with no 68K Support.Jan 4, 1999 – Blue and White Power Mac G3 ships. This is the machine I still use today as my primary system, a Rev 1 B&W G3 350.March 1999 – Mac OS X ships. March 94 – March 99, we’re at the 5 year mark now. Much software that runs on OS 8.1 and below is fat binary and will run PPC or 68K, some that is 8.0 – 9 specific requires a PPC system. The countdown now starts to have all new software require Mac OS X.August 31, 1999 – PowerMac G4/400 Intro.July 19, 2000 – G4 Cube Intro.July 18, 2001 – Quick Silver G4 Intro.Jan 28, 2003 – G4 reaches 1.42 GhzJuly 2003 – G5 Introduced.Today, 2005 – My 540 laptops may not run OS X, but it still has a wealth of software that gives me basic functions. Great word processor for typing articles / term papers under my favorite tree. My Putty G3 will not, under any coersion, run OS X, and my B&W G3 is 6 and 1/2 years old.What does that mean to me? I am unable to run iDVD. Though I would love to be able to, there is some OSS software I *can* run that does what little Video manipulation I need. It syncs to my iPod, surfs the internet, gets my email, compiles what little code I do write, and above all else, talks to my 540s on the network so I can transfer documents and novellas I’m working on to and from.I’ll probably buy a Mac Mini just before the first Intel to have the last of the G4’s, but do I need it? No, the computer I’m using that is 6 years old does everything I need it to do, runs current software with some slight exceptions, and notice that it took *years* for the 68K’s to phase out.The only place I’ve ever had major issues in compatibility across my Macs is games, and I have game consoles for that. Everything else I can find other software that does the same that will work for what I need. Sometimes I think we forget that a computer is a tool, and so long as it’s still able to drive home nails and unbolt fenders it’s doing it’s job.Sorry, I get a little touchy here because I lived through the 68K to PPC conversion. The same was true than as with my B&W now. I never felt like I had been forgotten and was always able to do what I needed to do with my machine. Ok, so I can’t run the latest, greatest, newest, all fangled Word on my 540. Why do I want to, though? The only thing most of us do in word is type a simple paper, heck we don’t even use multiple fonts or expect pre-publish alignment.Any Mac, purchased today, will last until support is officially discontinued if not beyond. Any Mac, purchased today, will also continue to be supported by third parties for at least two years, if not longer. I say this with certainty because it’s already happened once. If you have 50,000 entrenched and viable PPC users, all with dollars waving, and 8,000 Intel users with dollars in hand, it doesn’t take Einstein to see that the developers are going to check the “Fat Binary” option and sell to all 58,000 users, not just 8,000. However, in two, or three, or four years time, when the reverse is true, they may be less likely to click the box. But it is going to take years of selling the Intel based Macs, so that user channels are flooded with the newer machines, to create that necessity.This means that they will not, as you so eloquently put, “become doorstops overnight.” No matter how hard you wish and pray, it won’t become a reality. Unfortunately for you, your G5 will continue to be a powerhouse and workhorse of a machine for you for a few more years to come, at which point it will still be powerful pricewise compared to it’s PC counterparts on eBay. 2005-07-25 12:35 am Why buy them next year apple will start selling intel based systems? 2005-07-25 12:56 am A year is a long time in computer terms. Besides, there is no point in waiting. There won’t be a helluva lot of Mac Intel applications available when the machines first hit the shelves. It will take at least another year for a significant number of apps to appear. 2005-07-25 1:38 am In another surprise move from Mr Jobs, these machines will be x86. 2005-07-25 2:44 am pravdaIf Apple introduces a slick widescreen iBook and upgrades for the Mac mini, there will be many buyers. Most Mac users do not know about processors.When it comes to obsolesence in the digital age, if you need to get something done today, tomorrow’s technology is not going to do the job.It’s like people waiting for the ultimate digital camera which is always available a year from now. You may be able to get 12MP a year from now for $900. But that won’t make up for the thousands of 8MP pictures you didn’t get to take because you didn’t have a camera.People have to accept that technology has a very short half-life. It’s just the way it is. 2005-07-25 5:38 am kellymMac users aren’t aware of the processors? If anything Mac users are more aware of the processors in their computers than PC users. We’re the ones going against the grain and choosing a platform based on what we deem to be better merits. Being aware of the processor is a byproduct of this increased awareness. The more people try to pigonhole Mac users into a specific group, the more we will go out of our way to prove you wrong for doing so… which is what causes so many of you guys to label us as zealots or fanatics. 2005-07-25 5:43 am I hope these will be fast enough to play fullscreen HDTV without framedrops. My 1.4 GHz mini can do SD but not HD. 2005-07-25 10:22 am Jackson BrownSo true 2005-07-25 10:26 am BryanFeeneyConsider:The entire back catalogue of Mac software will definitely run on PPC, but will have to run on x86 through Rosetta, which may not give consistent performance.All new applications for the next five years will run on both PPC and x86. The compiler tools are there and there’s no reason not to build universal binaries: hard-disk space and bandwidth are increasing rapidly.Therefore, if you value compatibility, you should get yourself a G4 or a G5, you’ll be fine for the next five years, at which point your processor will be too slow to run contemporary software anyway.. However if you value speed, you should get a G5 or Pentium. The G4 has a low clock speed (far too low for any architecture to make up, megahertz myth or no) and its front-side bus is staggeringly slow at 166Mhz, which is a big deal in an operating system that uses as much memory as MacOS X. 2005-07-25 11:10 am I’m getting a Mac Mini soon and this is great news. I want a silent computer that comes with a real CPU, not an accumulator-based x86 piece of shit that needs 100W and starts in 16bit compat mode just because Microseft products needs to be supported. And NetBSD runs very nicely on the Mini. Great news. 2005-07-25 11:46 am I’m a new mac user, switched 3 monthes ago.Of course i prefer OS X, but the 1.42MHz cpu is very slow.On the Mini OS X runs as slow as XP on a 100MHz PC.When buying a new computer, I did’nt think that I would be frustrated like that.It is limit not acceptable.I spent 950€ for my mini,and 1 month later they want I give them 130€ for Tiger, to run nearly as slow as Panther.Perhaps it is not very helpful that PPC are so beautiful inside… 2005-07-25 12:23 pm All macs are disposable. They last a year or two and than you need to buy new software with new bugs and start debugging again. Continueing proccess of getting nowhere. To run Mac OS X GUI you need ten Xeon processors to notice speed. Older Mac OS9 system was really fast and good. 2005-07-25 12:51 pm While your mileage may vary, you seem to be trolling. The only possible explanation to your exagerated remarks have to be lack of RAM. Probably, you only have got 256MB of it…My Mac Mini with 1GB RAM works like a chram. 2005-07-25 1:36 pm I’m amused at the panic some people seem to feel. I’ve bought an iMac G3 in 2000. It became too slow and cramped for my needs but I passed it on to a newbie user. They’re now still using this 6 year old machine [the model wasn’t new when I bought it] and they can do everything they need with it. They’re not taxing the system as I did and they will want a Mini soon. Small footprint, far better spec. They’ll get one by the end of year and probably a bargain to boot. The machine will last for years and years because they don’t need a broad range of applications. There is plenty of software available already and their needs are quite modest [they need more RAM though, all Macs need heaps of RAM].There is a market segment that will always buy the latest and greatest. These are not the majority of the market. For the user with modest expectations, a Mac they buy today will easily, easily, last them 5 years or more.They won’t run juggernaut apps, but they weren’t going to. They can’t upgrade it until it’s the size of a deathstar, but they weren’t going to. They won’t be able to create massive and complex models to determine the size and speed of particles in the heart of an exploding sun which, again, is no problem because they weren’t planning to.Existing Macs will NOT come to a screeching halt because Apple decides to launch machines that have an Intel processor on board.If the only thing you need to do to make your app run on both platforms is to check a box that will compile to both processors, it’s a safe assumption software developers are going to take the trouble to cater to the needs of PPC Mac users.The only realistic approach today is to see that there are many more Mac users. They will want the applications they require in their workaday life. The more Mac users there are, the more profitable it becomes to develop for that market, which in turn makes it a viable proposition for users to get a Mac instead of a PC. It’s not realistic to believe that growth will be limitless, but I would be surprised if the influx of new users does not encourage more developers to release their products for the Mac as well. More people making money off the Mac is going to create a big market place with plenty of opportunity for everyone and great stuff coming the user’s way.At this point in time I can see a far brighter future for Apple than I can for Linux [and I love the Linux crowd, let’s be clear about that, more power to you]. A far more mature platform, great interoperability and except for Ogg, which I haven’t seen on the Mac yet [not that I feel a driving need for it], I don’t see what Linux could offer me what my Mac doesn’t offer me in lush abundance already.Don’t let a projected processor swap stop you from buying a Mac. Why wait to be happy? 2005-07-26 3:25 pm Ogg is on the Mac. I think one of the programs is Whamb! (if i remember right, the ‘!’ is part of the name.) i was looking into it a while back just to see what the fuss was about.but it is here if you want it. 2005-07-25 2:45 pm going from 512M to 1.5G on a PowerBook made a huge difference for me, even when only running Mail Safari and iPhoto.This is probably due to the larger buffer cache compensating for the slow hard disk. Maybe.Whatever the reason, get as much RAM as you can afford! 2005-07-25 3:13 pm At this point in time I can see a far brighter future for Apple than I can for LinuxI presume you have the desktop in mind when predicting that.Linux has made name in the server world long before people outside the graphical industry thought of a Mac as something you buy at Mc Donalds.The financial market has quietly shifted towards Linux and friends en masse.No other OS finds it’s way in such a great diversity of applyances as Linux does.Don’t let a projected processor swap stop you from buying a Mac. Why wait to be happy?I’m allready happy with gentoo on amd64.Well the dual-core celeron trick which only has added marketing but no real added performance value for the customer doesn’t really rises my appetite for the CPU in question.The shift to x86_(64) architecture doesn’t really matter although i would have liked to see Apple join up with AMD and the X2’s which are avaible now and give every Intel CPU a severe beating on almost any terrain. 2005-07-25 3:29 pm polaris20I’m a new mac user, switched 3 monthes ago.Of course i prefer OS X, but the 1.42MHz cpu is very slow.On the Mini OS X runs as slow as XP on a 100MHz PC.When buying a new computer, I did’nt think that I would be frustrated like that.It is limit not acceptable.Did you try turning it on?Seriously, take your troll crap elsewhere. Your staggeringly ridiculous complaints are as ridiculous to Mac users as they are to Linux and XP users.I don’t own a Mac, but I’ve used a Mac 1.25Ghz Mini, with bottom of the barrel 256MB RAM, and it wasn’t that slow.And why not register and get a username attached to your assinine comments? Someone might actually take you a little more seriously. Well, probably not. 2005-07-25 3:37 pm sbergman27It sounds like a sincere complaint to me, though the comment about XP on a 100Mhz machine may be a bit over the top.Unfortunately, I’m not in a position to help. The last Apple I had was a II+. And it did just fine on 48k of RAM. 😉 2005-07-25 8:31 pm pravdaMac mini with 256MB is dog slow as soon as you open a few web tabs/pages.Even with 1GB, the mini slows down from time to time. It is a whole level of performance above 256MB though.It is a shame Apple didn’t put two DIMM slots in the mini. 2GB is just about right for most modern operating systems. I’ve got 2GB for Linux, 2GB for XP, and 3GB for Windows 2000. The mini at 1GB is a bit slower and swaps more often. The processor lags a bit compared to Intel as well. 2005-07-25 8:51 pm Rodrigo> I’ve got 2GB for Linux, 2GB for XP, and 3GB for Windows 2000I bet that if I removed 1GB of each and didn’t tell you, you wouldn’t note the difference.2Gb to run Linux is not “about right” for Joe User, it’s way too much. 2005-07-26 1:26 am TuishimiErrrr… no.I do run the mini at 1GB. Started with 512 and noted the swapping. Haven’t had that problem since. I also upgraded the internal HD to a faster drive and that cures a lot of ills as well.My 1.42 mini has been just as responsive as my dual 1.25 G4 tower. Lovin’ it! But, being a nerd, I have already set aside $$ to buy a MacTel version as soon as they come out!! 2005-07-25 11:26 pm “2GB is just about right for most modern operating systems.”Are you high?? Only people with top end needs should need more than 512MB at this stage in the game. Any OS that needs 2GB is half ass. 2005-07-25 11:43 pm polaris20I’ve got 2GB for Linux, 2GB for XP, and 3GB for Windows 2000. The mini at 1GB is a bit slower and swaps more often. The processor lags a bit compared to Intel as well.I do audio work on my computers (Tracktion, Reason, Sound Forge) and I have 768MB on my laptop (XP) and 1gig on my desktop (XP)I disagree with the modern OS’s needing 2gig. That’s ridiculous. 2005-07-26 1:04 am pravdaSome people use their computers more than others. The way I use the computer, I benefit from a lot of memory.In the end-user performance testing I’ve done, you get a big pay off when you get to about 900MB memory for the modern OS (1GB in round numbers). There is another pay off around 1.5-1.7GB and then things taper off.So I’ve got 2GB of each of my workstations and 3GB on the server as I burn over 2GB of memory with virtual machines.Even if you just open a few large Photoshop images, having at least 1GB is a big time saver. I could not imagine using a computer, any OS, with 512MB of RAM. That is like buying a Ferrari and limiting the speed to 25mph. What a waste. 2005-07-26 1:38 pm RodrigoApple should make a formal commitment to keep supporting PPC hardware for the next 5 years or so, and request the third-party software developers for Mac OS to do the same, otherwise a lot of people will feel unsure to buy a new Mac at the moment…Still, depending on what spec they put in the next Mini incarnation, it will be hard for me to resist.. I am itching to try a Mac for a change..