Slashdot Log In
MacWorld MacBook Only a Prototype?
Posted by
CmdrTaco
on Mon Jan 23, 2006 09:12 AM
from the well-thats-not-surprising dept.
from the well-thats-not-surprising dept.
mahju writes "Hard Mac is reporting that Apple's, unoffical, response in Paris to the the lack of information on battery life, is that the MacBook Pro that were demoed at Mac World SF are only prototypes and the final versions are still under development.
"
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Wow (Score:5, Insightful)
Anyone at Macworld 13 days ago could see that the MacBook Pro units on display didn't have proper serial numbers, and it was no secret that they were development units. "Prototypes" is probably a little overboard, but yeah, they were not final, shipping production units.
Considering that it has always been known that the MacBook Pro wouldn't be shipping for another month or so, and was in fact represented as such, is it any surprise that units displayed a month and a half before the unit started shipping wouldn't yet, well, you know, be shipping units?
Now if Apple rolls out iTimeMachine at some point in the future, I'll consider eating my words.
I think the lack of high-speed firewire is news (Score:3, Insightful)
That the units are prototypes -- yes, I agree, no real suprise there.
Re:I think the lack of high-speed firewire is news (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree with you, but this, as you say, is likely a result of Apple going pretty much straight vanilla [appleintelfaq.com] with Intel CPUs and chipsets in its new machines. This can, of course, be a good thing and a bad thing, depending on your perspective.
Parent
Re:I think the lack of high-speed firewire is news (Score:5, Informative)
Until it wasn't. Suddenly the iMac comes out, and has no SCSI. Almost immediately the Blue and White G3s come out, sans SCSI (with lip-service paid in the form of an optional plug in card) Firewire is supposedly the replacement, but it isn't really, no Mac ships with Firewire hard-disks or optical media, it's IDE that's the replacement. In the space of months, SCSI goes from being central to the Mac experience to being an optional extra. The system is not directly replaced, it's just dropped. The "External peripheral that needs a large amount of bandwidth" capability is maintained by introducing Firewire, but there's little evidence right now that high-speed USB or high-speed Ethernet couldn't be used in a similar way, especially with SAN becoming increasingly mainstream.
Firewire support being capped at FW400 is a big deal. It represents a net downgrade of the technology, and suggests Apple doesn't see themselves using it, either by choice or by their increasing reliance on Intel, at some point in the future. Unless this is a temporary aberation, brought about by short term needs to get a box, any box, out there, I think it's safe to suggest that Apple isn't planning on further development of the technology.
Parent
Re:I think the lack of high-speed firewire is news (Score:5, Insightful)
SCSI was slowly dying from the original Power Macs in 1994 through the first iMac and Blue & White G3, the first machines to ship without it. By that time, Macs were already using internal IDE hard disks and optical drives. It wasn't as if this was some sort of a surprise. Also, SCSI usage was most definitely not increasing; it was decreasing drastically.
With FireWire, it is *the* transport of choice, and usually the only transport, for all DV and HDV cameras, decks, and other video equipment, and is increasingly used on high end DTV and HDTV equipment and other high end audio/video equipment As long as that is true, and as long as half of iLife depends upon DV transport to get data into the computer and the applications (iMovie, iDVD), FireWire isn't going anywhere. Now, could DV cameras transition to USB 2.0 over the next years? Sure. And if they do, fine. (The integrated iSight in the new Macs is USB, for what it's worth.)
I'm sure FireWire will eventually, like anything, be replaced by another standard. But for now, it's here to stay for quite some time.
Parent
Re:I think the lack of high-speed firewire is news (Score:4, Insightful)
If this doesn't scream "Being phased out", I don't know what would.
Sure, it'll continue to exist on high end workstations. But, you know, SCSI lives on in my employer's server room too, and like I said earlier, Apple made PCI SCSI cards available for long after they, realistically, dropped the standard. While I'm not saying they will, I suspect it'll generate nothing approaching an outcry if, in a year, at the very least the iMac, Mac mini, and iBook-replacement, all shipped without built-in Firewire.
The FAQ entry is far too optimistic. It's based upon flawed speculation whose grounds are as firm as a similar entry in favour of SCSI in the late nineties. SCSI being dropped was a major surprise at the time, whereas I wouldn't be surprised if the majority of Mac users have never even touched their firewire ports.
Parent
Re:I think the lack of high-speed firewire is news (Score:3, Informative)
Re:I think the lack of high-speed firewire is news (Score:3, Informative)
Let's wait for Rev 2 to decide (Score:4, Insightful)
Look at the Intel line-up. They offer an iMac and a MacBook on Intel, AND EVERYTHING on PowerPC. The video guys have been howling that the MacBook isn't perfect for them without FW800... Well guess what, Rev A isn't for you.
The pro-graphics/pro-video crowd isn't going to migrate until software has native support... Rosetta won't cut it for them, even Steve Jobs SAID SO in the KEYNOTE... that's an anti-sell.
However, they needed to get Intel machines out the door. Dev machines are great for big partners who wanted to get an early start, but until hardware ships, you can't QA your product. Your developers COULD have ported the code as needed over the past 6 months, but how do you QA a product without the release version.
This is a KEY release... 1) developers now have to get their asses in gear and finish the migration, because Intel gear is here. 2) development houses have shipping hardware to test against, and 3) developers have real gear to work with.
So many Mac developers carry Powerbooks. Having the iMac and MacBook gives developers machines to work on and QA teams machines to test on. The PowerMac hasn't been upgrades and won't for a while... Why? Until Adobe/Macromedia, Quark, and Apple's pro-divisions upgrade their software, there is no reason for pros to migrate. Also, the dual-dual G5s are REALLY REALLY fast, and compete with the top end of the Intel world. Until Intel ships their 64-bit versions of these chips, there isn't a reason to switch.
I wouldn't be overly shocked if FW800 goes away (with addon cards for those with the gear), but until a USB 3 can provide the bandwidth, the video guys aren't going to be happy. However, I also wouldn't be shocked at a MacBook rev in 6 months, introducing the MacBook and MacBook Pro lines, with the former being mostly stock Intel to replace the iBook, and the latter having the high end gear that the video guys need.
However, I need a MacBook NOW. All my internal applications are currently PPC only, and we need to start the transition. As our apps are for internal use, it didn't seem important to rush the job with the dev machines, we figured Rev A gets us going, and with Rev B of the Intel machines, we'll switch. We already migrated our internal machines from iMacs (in the G4 era) to Mac Minis w/ Apple Monitors, so that if we decide to NOT support dual-platforms, we can cheaply forklift each station at $500/station.
But no shipping Intel hardware means nobody doing the ports and QAs that you video guys want done BEFORE YOUR hardware is released.
Remember, those of us that program for OS X need to get our machines BEFORE YOU, or there is NO SOFTWARE for you to run on your new video machines.
Alex
Parent
Re:I think the lack of high-speed firewire is news (Score:5, Interesting)
sigh.
Parent
Is one SATA? (Score:3, Insightful)
If pretty much the only thing people were using Firewire 800 for was discs then why not replace that standard with a much faster alternative?
Re:I think the lack of high-speed firewire is news (Score:5, Interesting)
This market is likely to be taken over by external SATA, or eSATA. You can read about it here [sata-io.org]. With no overhead in converting to SATA and a much higher cap to begin with, it is likely to be the solution for external high-performance storage. Firewire is still limited by the fact that both current DV and newer HDV cameras don't need FW800 for live playback. On the low end, USB is the standard for anything for keyboard, mice and everything else (with some competition from the PS/2 port). In short, FW800 is a technology looking for a market and the market just isn't there.
Parent
Re:I think the lack of high-speed firewire is news (Score:3, Informative)
Re:I think the lack of high-speed firewire is news (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:I think the lack of high-speed firewire is news (Score:3, Informative)
Re:I think the lack of high-speed firewire is news (Score:2)
and all for what? because (quoting the article) it required Apple to build a specific board?
that's absolutely pathetic. suddenly, they've shipped everything out to Intel and can't even design a little b
Re: The problem with FW800 (Score:5, Insightful)
Those connectors needed to be backwards compatible.
Parent
Re: The problem with FW800 (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Wow (Score:3, Informative)
I was foolish, and gave in to the marketing and ordered a MacBook Pro. (Oh, but the thrill of being an early adopter!)
Estimated shipping date for the UK: February 15th. So, just over a month between the announcement and the ma
Re:Wow (Score:3, Interesting)
There's also other interesting information in the articl
Re:Wow (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Wow (Score:3, Interesting)
But it does appear that Apple is less in control of its destiny than it's been in the past
Please tell me at what point since '95 has Apple been "in control of it's destiny."
I kid, but seriously--they were first jerked around by Moto--Apple was notorious for shipping behind the curve systems because Moto failed to keep up. This seriously hurt Apple. Next, Apple tried again with IBM--who also failed to keep up with the market.
While Apple may not be able to dictate all of the technology that they can ship
Re:Wow (Score:3, Interesting)
Also, Intel said that they had a massive team of engineers working on the Apple product, and what else would they be doing but designing the motherboard and chipset?
That being said, I suspect you are right and stand corrected.
D
Re:Wow (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
iTimeMachine (Score:3, Funny)
Actually the iTimeMachine was rolled out already, several times in the past and then back to the future.
It has that power.
Re:How was it presented to the faithful? (Score:3, Insightful)
There was nothing "implied".
The MacBook Pro was announced in the keynote, and Jobs said to the "faithful" that it wasn't available yet and would be shipping in February. I.e., not shipping yet. I.e., no *shipping* units available yet. Did he *specifically* say they were "prototypes" or development units on display? No, but 1.) I think that a rational person can infer that, since they're not *shipping* yet and won't be for another month or month and a half (at the time)
Re:Wow (Score:5, Interesting)
2. Apple - and other vendors - have preannounced products and shown pre-production units before they have shipped many, many, many times in the past. This is NOT new.
3. What if Apple had preannounced the MacBook Pro the same exact way they did, and still said "shipping in mid-February", and then didn't show anything at all at Macworld, even though the product is essentially done? How would that be better?
I'd love an explanation as to how this is anything new, much less "irresponsible".
Parent
Explains alot (Score:5, Interesting)
1. Only the 15 inch model was released (not the 12 or 17 inch version)
2. You can still buy the entire range of G4 laptops
3. The release date was February whilst the iMac was immediately available.
Makes sense - I think apple wanted to make a splash at MacWorld and the laptop wasn't quite ready yet.
I wouldn't be surprised if the entire MacBook range actually ships simultaneously, even if they are announced separately.
Of course, they were announcing six months ahead of schedule, so they aren't really that far behind. And at least my shiny new (1 year old) power book doesn't quite feel outdated just yet
Michael
Re:Explains alot (Score:5, Funny)
Wait for it... wait for it... Ok, now it's outdated.
It takes less and less time these days.
Parent
Re:Explains alot (Score:2)
Re:Explains alot (Score:3, Interesting)
Universal binaries will only be produced for so long, and the performance difference in the architectures will probably doom PowerPC within a year or two.
Re:Explains alot (Score:3, Funny)
The iPod too (from http://snltranscripts.jt.org/05/05fupdate.phtml )
Amy Poehler: Wait, that iPod was only out for like five seconds.
Steve Jobs: Five seconds too long! It was too big! Ridicules, old, obsolete! But guess what, I'm very proud to introduce, and I'm thrilled about this, the new iPod Invisa.
(He 'pulls' something out but he is really not holding anything)
Amy Poehler: Okay, wait a minute Steve Jobs, I don't even think you're really holding an
Explains nothing... (Score:2)
Makes sense - I think apple wanted to make a splash at MacWorld and the laptop wasn't quite ready yet.
And they've done this with other products so many times at other Macworld and WWDC keynotes that I've lost track.
I guess I'm just at a loss for how this is possibly interesting, considering it's kind of obvious that they weren't shipping units, considering they're not, well, shipping yet, and because Apple has preannounced products myriad times before.
Re:Explains alot (Score:2)
Actually, I think (and would hope) it is because right now the universal application support is seriously lacking. I don't even think there's a version of Photoshop that's universal, and Rosetta is described by Apple themselves as not to be used for production/professional application software. Basically, all Apple Pro applications won't work with Rosetta, and they say there "will" be a universal version of Logic available for owners of the current one. Tha
I think Monty Python said it best.. (Score:5, Funny)
LAUNCELOT: Look, my liege!
ARTHUR: Camelot!
GALAHAD: Camelot!
LAUNCELOT: Camelot!
PATSY: It's only a model.
ARTHUR: Shhh!
Shocking (Score:3, Funny)
*looks at my mini... aww that was obviously released immediately*
All my sarcasm being said and done, I don't think anybody looked at the 15" MacBook (god I hate that name) and thought it was anything beyond a rush job. Probably a very good machine, and something I'd buy if I had the money, but it's nothing earth shattering in terms of design or anything like that - it just *shouts* "we needed to do something about our powerbooks, and we needed to get as many x86 boxes out as soon as possible."
Oh, and "we wanted to spite the rumors sites"
Story Seems Dubious To Me... (Score:5, Interesting)
The assembly line has to be geared up before any production can take place. How long does that take after the design is finalised?
I can't see how a model could still be in development and yet ship as a completed unit in a month.
Re:Story Seems Dubious To Me... (Score:2)
Re:Story Seems Dubious To Me... (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Obvious (Score:5, Informative)
Yeah, typical Apple... other vendors too... (Score:4, Informative)
Way back in the pre-Carly days, when HP did engineering, I found HP to be the only vendor for which it was always seemed to be true that if you saw a glossy ad for an interesting product, you could order it and get it delivered. Everyone else played the game of announcing what they hoped would be ready soon and crossing their fingers.
The most egregious Steveism of this kind I can remember occurred in the year that they announced the first G4 PowerMacs. (The G4 processor included the "Altivec" instruction extensions which could produce dramatic speedups in applications specially coded to take advantage of them).
It was in the early fall of 1999, the rumor sites had reported--accurately, it eventually transpired--that Apple was having trouble with their new motherboards and "the G4's" wouldn't ship until calendar 2000.
Steve talked about the G4 processor and repeatedly referred to "these machines." He then proceeded to demonstrate a unit that had a redesigned motherboard ("Sawtooth") with a faster bus, faster video chips, and many other speedups. With an implied smirk at the rumor sites, he said "and these machines are shipping NOW."
The only thing was, the machines that were shipping "now" were not the machines he had just demonstrated, but a machine that used a "Yikes!" motherboard, essentially the previous motherboard with minimal modifications to allow incorporation of a G4 processor. So, his words were literally true (machines with G4 processors were shipping now), but somewhat misleading... they weren't the "machines" he was showing... and performance was broadly comparable to the previous generation of machines, except in a very few applications (Photoshop) that took advantage of Altivec.
Of course, everyone remembers the initial introduction of the Mac... when the machine he unveiled on the stage spoke, using the MacInTalk speech synthesizer... although MacInTalk would not run in the 128K Macs that Apple was actually shipping.
128K MacInTalk... (Score:5, Interesting)
Speak [mac.com] takes up 36 KB of disk space and can talk quite well on a 128K Mac. Give it a whirl.
Browsing the usenet, I see several comments from Mac 128K users that have played with MacInTalk, so it seems to work with that limited RAM. Perhaps the final released version of MacInTalk was a further optimized version of the SAM port?
Parent
Otellini, Grove, and Jobs (Score:4, Interesting)
An irony about the video is Otellini looks ghastly ill while Jobs and Grove, who have both survived cancer, look the picture of health. Perhaps it was the lighting or perhaps Otellini needs to hit the gym.
Were the MacBooks really intended for the Expo ? (Score:4, Interesting)
So instead of a new Mac mini, video download service and new iPod shuffle, were the gaps left in the keynote filled with a very leisurely stroll through iLife 06 and a preview of the forthcoming MacBook ?
The MacBook certainly comes across as being a product that wasn't originally intended to be announced at that time.
I tried the battery at MacWorld, it was horrible (Score:5, Informative)
It said 2:37 minutes on a full charge.
Then someone invited us to an iSight videoconference and it dropped to 1:50 (still on a full charge).
The employee didn't tell me that these were pre-production, but he did say the unit was still under testing, including all the thermals that control the fan, and that that would really eat battery. He also said that the screen was much brighter and that would eat more power (and he's right, I had my 1.5Ghz PowerBook with me and took it out for comparison. The MacBook looked almost two times brighter to the eye).
I feel pretty confident that they'll get good battery life in the final unit, but it was odd how they skirted the issue instead of simply announcing that these models weren't good predictors of battery life (all the forums were FILLED with just this topic, and even this story carries it forward, where if they had addressed it, the question would be settled--just wait, it will come).
MacBook s-video/composite? (Score:3, Interesting)
Hard to say as it obviously isn't shipping yet, but Apple used to mention this capability in the specs... MacBook, not so much...
Re:MacBook s-video/composite? YES (Score:5, Informative)
http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/
Parent
I hope... (Score:5, Funny)
In, what way, does this differ, from the, usual? (Score:3, Insightful)
2. Demo prototype
3. ?
4. Profit
Isn't this, what every, hardware, and, software company has always, done?
Re:Prototype (Score:3, Informative)
The difference is that 64-bit is a strict superset of 32-bit so all your 32-bit software will run.
You're quite correct though that any 64-bit software will probably have trouble on 32-bit machines. Regular software doesn't tend to upgrade very fast though. I suspect 32-bit Macs (and PCs) have qui