Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Intel Businesses Apple

Apple Planning Intel iBook Debut for January? 577

Posted by Zonk
from the apple-christmas dept.
axonis writes "Apple is planning to release its first entry-level iBook laptops with Intel processors next January at Macworld Expo in San Francisco, highly reliable sources have confirmed to Think Secret." From the article: "Apple will almost certainly tap Intel's forthcoming Yonah processor for the iBooks, a successor to the company's Pentium M. It is unknown whether Apple will go with a dual-core version of the processor, slated for release in January, or a single-core version, which Intel announced in August would be delivered shortly after the dual-core version. The dual-core Yonah chip could very likely deliver performance greater than Apple's current G4-based PowerBooks."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Apple Planning Intel iBook Debut for January?

Comments Filter:
  • Don't buy this. (Score:0, Interesting)

    by Seth Finklestein (582901) on Thursday November 17, 2005 @10:33AM (#14051925) Journal
    When you buy an Intel PowerBook, you're buying into the most evil technology imaginable -- technology pioneered by Microsoft, but adopted by Apple! Apple plans to incorporate so-called "Tamper-Resistant Code" into Mac OS X [google.com], and you can't spell "Tamper-Resistant Code" without TPM [google.com].

    I will continue to use my Linux boxen, both desktop and laptop, with the knowledge that I only buy hardware which I am permitted to hack with at my own discretion.
  • by SamSeaborn (724276) on Thursday November 17, 2005 @10:35AM (#14051941)
    My understanding is the iBook and the Mac Mini use the same components.

    Surely if Apple announces an Intel based iBook, an Intel based Mac Mini will be there too? Or will follow very shortly.

    Sam

  • Re:All right (Score:2, Interesting)

    by _vSyncBomb (50710) on Thursday November 17, 2005 @10:37AM (#14051956) Journal
    Oh, I forgot to disclose to you all my secret insider information that Intel PowerBooks will be released too, since even a single-core Yonah would have to be hobbled like the dude in that Heinlein story not to burn fiery rings around the circa-2004 processors in the shiny PowerBooks.

    Now that you know that, my previous post will make more sense.
  • Re:All right (Score:2, Interesting)

    by KingVance (815011) on Thursday November 17, 2005 @10:42AM (#14052009)
    Yeah.

    After hurricane Katrina hit us, my work decided we needed portability.

    Along comes the 12" powerbooks.

    Its cool and all, and it seems to be fast enough to run quark, photoshop, illustrator, flash, and dreamweaver on my machine. But I know other machines run it all faster.

    One of the photogs neandered in here with a 17" behemoth PC with a 3.2ghz proc. I dont care about the diff in architectures...a 3.2ghz p4 is still faster than a 1.5ghz g4 all day long.

    Even if i have 1.25gig ram vs his 768.

    But there have been several features added. It's kinda nice. Oh, and for those who dont know, the 12" powerbook is just a 3rd iBook. Apple decided the silver aluminum case would be better.
  • dual-core ? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by PureCreditor (300490) on Thursday November 17, 2005 @10:44AM (#14052025)
    perhaps Apple can use the single-core versions for iBook to enhance batt life, while using the dual-core on pBook to highlight the differences between the 2 lines of notebooks.
  • by pubjames (468013) on Thursday November 17, 2005 @10:51AM (#14052076)

    Apple says they'll deliver something by a particular date, and instead deliver it six months earlier. That's very cool. Microsoft should learn from them and stop promising and then failing to deliver products on time.
       
  • by timeOday (582209) on Thursday November 17, 2005 @10:53AM (#14052090)
    "Greater than current G4" isn't setting the bar very high, especially if they go with the dual core chip (which would certainly be nice). I hesitate to risk a flamewar by asserting that current Pentium-M's are already a lot faster than the G4, but they are, so I will.
  • I want to see... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by AugstWest (79042) on Thursday November 17, 2005 @10:59AM (#14052167)
    ...how they implement the instant-on stuff. None of this "hibernation" crap, when I open my powerbook, I start working. Done and done.

    And it it can be easily implemented on Intel arch, why hasn't it been done?
  • by superid (46543) on Thursday November 17, 2005 @11:06AM (#14052241) Homepage
    "The dual-core Yonah chip could very likely deliver performance greater than Apple's current G4-based PowerBooks"

    So a dual core new offering might be as good as a 2+ year old G4??

    Is the Pentium M really that bad? Is the G4 really THAT good?

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 17, 2005 @11:07AM (#14052259)
    I wonder if they will sell many laptops before, oh, say, Q3 2006?

        * Holiday sales: Who will buy PowerPC iBooks (or other Mac hardware) during the holidays, with the Intels coming out in January? If you want to keep your computer for a few years, as many consumers do, you'll want the Intel.

        * Version 1.0: Who wants to buy version 1.0 of the Intel-based Macs, fresh out of design and off the production line?

        * No apps: Who wants to buy a platform with no native apps?
  • Re:How many? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by NutscrapeSucks (446616) on Thursday November 17, 2005 @11:07AM (#14052261)
    > They've made their opinion quite clear as of recent that they couldn't care less about the direction Apple is moving

    I thought the Adobe CEO was at the Intel annoucement and said something like "We wanted you to switch to Intel years ago!"

    Personally, I think Adobe will be ready, but they will be ready according to the pre-determined CS3 product schedule, meaning late 2006. (Because they have apps built around the old environments, it is not just a recompile for them.)
  • Re:Humor & irony (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Midnight Thunder (17205) on Thursday November 17, 2005 @11:10AM (#14052280) Homepage Journal
    It should also be mentioned that it is far easier to make high performance, processor with high power consumption, than the a high performance processor with low power consumption. The later is what Apple was wanting, but IBM was not delivering and ironically I wonder whether the choice of both the Nintendo and Microsoft to use PowerPC, shifted IBM's priorities and thus forced Apple to make the shift?

    As to whether the new Macs could come out as early as January, it certainly is possible, but I am not going to hold my breath and I won't get all depresive if it doesn't happen. At the end of the day, other than a different CPU everything else is the same. If it is a question of games, then the existence of D3D for Mac would be of more interest.
  • by Wonderkid (541329) on Thursday November 17, 2005 @11:18AM (#14052391) Homepage
    ...and introduce a light weight touch screen laptop that combines some of the concepts of MiT's sub $100 machine, a Sony VAIO (or is it VIAO?), the current iBook build quality and a swivel screen. An Inkwell based pen driven interface would be far more intuitive and offers a natural instinctive GUI - just what children need to stimulate their imaginations. The whole paradigm of using a mouse, trackpad and keyboard is so counter productive, except for specific desktop and power user applications. Bring on the PowerPad! Intel inside, Inkwell outside!
  • by nine-times (778537) <nine.times@gmail.com> on Thursday November 17, 2005 @11:40AM (#14052636) Homepage
    My understanding is the iBook and the Mac Mini use the same components.

    Surely if Apple announces an Intel based iBook, an Intel based Mac Mini will be there too? Or will follow very shortly.

    Minis are closer to Powerbooks, but either way, it raises a question for me. The Mac mini, PowerBooks, and iBooks all use similar components. If the switch to Intel is going to allow Apple to make their laptops thinner, lighter, more power-efficient, and more powerful, wouldn't it be a mistake to upgrade iBooks without upgrading PowerBooks? Otherwise, you'd probably end up with iBooks (the budget model) that were better than PowerBooks (the high-end).

    Also, if the Intel iBooks are really that great, and the price drops a couple hundred dollars (which has been reported), then wouldn't it start to cut into the Mini's market? I mean, is it worth getting the Mini for $700 when you can get a much better computer, in laptop form, for $800?

    So, if I were Apple, I don't think I'd let there be much of a delay between the release of Intel iBooks and the Intel PowerBooks/Minis. If I didn't do it all at the same time, I wouldn't be planning to sell many PowerPC models during the lag.

  • A prediction (Score:5, Interesting)

    by dgrgich (179442) <drew@@@grgich...org> on Thursday November 17, 2005 @11:40AM (#14052639) Homepage
    I'm ECSTATIC about this news - as long as the rumored ability to dual-boot Windows XP is a reality.

    I can easily justify the purchase of an iBook as a desktop replacement for my boss if the cost stays at around $1000. For this price, he'd be "buying" my current system as a replacement/"new" PC for others in the company as well as a portable system for me to use at home. However, this is only feasible in my environment if the machine can dual-boot Windows. I am a current Mac user and will be able to use OS X for its UNIX-y goodness but will have to fight Redmond's best minds from time to time as I use several tools that are only available in Microsoft-land. suspect that I'm not alone and that there is a sizeable market for users like me with bosses like mine.

    I can't help but think that since Apple is a hardware company - and not a software company - that they don't care what we do with the hardware once we have it in our grubby little mitts.
  • by cvas (150274) on Thursday November 17, 2005 @11:41AM (#14052653)
    WTF does WTD mean? I'm usually pretty good wth acronyms, but nothing I can come up with makes sense in context. Please don't tell me you were trying for some clean version of WTF. "What The Damn does *next* January mean?" just doesn't work. If that's the case, allow me to recommend "WTH" for your delicate sensibilities. You can even tell your friends that the "H" stands for "Heck".
  • by httpamphibio.us (579491) on Thursday November 17, 2005 @11:47AM (#14052720)
    For supposedly being the "graphics" platform the resolutions of the Apple laptops have always been pathetically low. I was running 1920x1200 on my 15.4" laptop, and now I'm running 1280x768 on my 10.6". 1024x768 on a 12.1" doesn't cut it, and it REALLY doesn't cut it on a 14.1".

    I just bought an Access Virus TI Desktop [access-music.de] and the fact that you can use it as an audio and MIDI interface as well as a knob box with direct access with a VST plugin is making me seriously consider moving away from Linux after five years... I can't stand MacOS, but I can't stand dualbooting even more.
  • PPC updates? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Tom (822) on Thursday November 17, 2005 @11:50AM (#14052744) Homepage Journal
    More importantly: Will they also upgrade the PPC models at Macworld in January? I'd buy a powerbook instantly if it had a better graphics card. Radeon 9700? Sorry, that's not a notebook with a few years of lifespan.
  • Re:And the point is? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by dfghjk (711126) on Thursday November 17, 2005 @11:59AM (#14052852)
    and of course the same could be said the other way around.

    Not sure how a "too far away" menubar could possibly be a benefit. It was done that way to make it easier to get to. His point that the screen has outgrown the UI is spot-on. The menubar is no longer easy to use.

    Of course, the answer to the question is to run OSX. That's obvious in any case. The real question is "why?"
  • by pdamoc (771461) on Thursday November 17, 2005 @12:15PM (#14053054) Homepage
    And I don't understand why we shouldn't have the right to have ones.

    Better yet, make those laptops 200$ for USA market. This way the purchase could be turned into a charity. When you buy one for yourself you also buy one for those kids in Africa.

    I would pay 200$ for one here in Romania knowing that it is worth 100$ and that the other 100$ is used to buy one for some kid in Africa.
  • by Itchyeyes (908311) on Thursday November 17, 2005 @12:16PM (#14053068) Homepage
    The question here is what happens with the Powerbooks if Apple introduces the Intel iBook first. Surely they're not going to have an iBook line that's more powerful than their current Powerbook offerings.
  • by AHumbleOpinion (546848) on Thursday November 17, 2005 @12:48PM (#14053426) Homepage
    You're right, it's not *THE* civil rights movement, the one with MLK and all that, but it is definitely *A* civil rights movement. Just because you don't care doesn't mean it's not important.

    No, it's a commercial right or property rights movement. Civil rights is about the rights a person has as a citizen of a country. Note the word "civil". ;-)
  • Re:A prediction (Score:3, Interesting)

    by smilinggoat (443212) on Thursday November 17, 2005 @01:04PM (#14053628) Homepage Journal
    I can't help but think that since Apple is a hardware company - and not a software company - that they don't care what we do with the hardware once we have it in our grubby little mitts.

    Ahh, so Apple doesn't make software? Have you heard about OS X? What about iTunes or Mail or iChat or iPhoto or Final Cut or Logic or Aperture?

    I don't understand that statement "Apple is a hardware company - and not a software company..." It is simply untrue. They are both a hardware and a software company.
  • by nine-times (778537) <nine.times@gmail.com> on Thursday November 17, 2005 @01:32PM (#14053944) Homepage
    The price drop rumors are nonsense.

    The rumor of a ~$800 iBook came from the same source that indicated a Intel iBook in January. Apparently, the same source that also predicted the Mini and photo iPod. The Mini is a "loss leader" of sorts, Apple is really betting on the second and hopefully "bigger" Mac that Mini owners eventually buy.

    No doubt that the Mini was produced in the hopes of luring Windows customers, but it isn't a "loss leader". I bet we see a $400 Mini within the next year, and even that will be profitable for Apple.

  • by AHumbleOpinion (546848) on Thursday November 17, 2005 @01:34PM (#14053971) Homepage
    ..what's the truth here? Are Intel processors more powerful than Motorola/IBM?

    The truth is that Apple told the truth but that it was cleverly phrased by marketing people so that consumers, and/or more importantly zealots, would misinterpret it. The truth is that:

    1. Historically and in general a PowerPC CPU is 25-35% faster than an Intel CPU of the *same* clockrate. Apple used phrases like "up to twice as fast" and this was true, you could find a specialized app that greatly benefitted from the RISC architecture of the PowerPC and get to 2X. However clockrates were not the same, clockrate is not the perfect measurement but it does matter.

    2. Apple was disingenuous in some of it's comparisons, the comparisons were "rigged" to a certain degree. The ByteMarks comparison where they used an old 486 version on a Pentium CPU. Fudged SPEC comparisons. Gcc "leveling the playing field" when gcc x86 is known to be weaker than gcc ppc and better x86 compilers are used for commercial x86 apps. Apple didn't lie, they did fully disclose all this in the "small print" but few had the technical sophistication to understand. While unacceptable in a paper presented to a scientific journal it was all pretty standard stuff for maketing literature and advertisements.
  • by unother (712929) <[myself] [at] [kreig.me]> on Thursday November 17, 2005 @01:37PM (#14053992) Homepage
    Just as a point of information: Apple will not introduce such dense displays until the GUI is completely independent of raster characteristics; otherwise, you would see some extremely tiny UI elements in such a screen on a laptop...

    Once Apple has enough developers transitioned to the new imaging model (Quartz 2D) rather than QuickDraw, I imagine they will initiate this move in the hardware.

    The main constraint here is software at the moment...
  • Re:All right (Score:3, Interesting)

    by NoodleSlayer (603762) <[ryan] [at] [severeboredom.com]> on Thursday November 17, 2005 @01:51PM (#14054147) Homepage
    And Intel has been stuck at 3.8 GHz on their top end for over a year now... Your point?
  • Re:Don't buy this. (Score:2, Interesting)

    by ChrisA90278 (905188) on Thursday November 17, 2005 @02:05PM (#14054314)
    Don't worry. The TPM chip does NOT cripple the hardware. I'm typing this on an HP "xw8200" that has a TPM chip on the motherboard. The hardware acts no different TPM is just something that an operating system can choose to use or chose to ignore. I have Solaris 10 install in this box and it ignores the TPM stuff, Linuix would ignore it too as would Darwin or any current version of Windows. What TPM does is this: The OS asks the chip to "measure" the hardware. It does this and returns a cryptographic hash. THe OS can compare this to a list of good hashes and then decide what to do. TPM can also do things like "measure" the software on a disk and the disk itself. This could even be a Good Thing on an Open Source operatring system For example Linux could use TPM as a way to make certain the system is not been compromised. It would be a powerfull security measure. Apple will use the TPM to insure that yu did not swap out the whole machine for a Dell, Gateway or whatever. ANy operating system that wants to be secure has to depend on having a secure and trusted "security kernel" that is "tamper proof" and known to work and be well tested. By "tamper proof" I mean you can __prove__ that it is not been messed with. Right now can you __prove__ that your Linux machine with it's one year "up time" has not had one byte of code changed in it's running kernel. You can't, OK you could write a checksun routine that runs periodically, but how do you know the checksum routine was not modified? You can't, not without locking the checksum routine into the hardware and that is what TPM does. If Apple does this right I'll be happy to know that Mac OS X uses TPM.
  • Re:All right (Score:3, Interesting)

    by FFFish (7567) on Thursday November 17, 2005 @02:59PM (#14054934) Homepage
    Pray tell, what is it you are doing that would benefit by a CPU speed boost?

    In my opinion, you'd be better focusing on hard drive and memory speed boosts.
  • by Phat_Tony (661117) on Friday November 18, 2005 @05:50PM (#14066624)
    I think you're right that the Quadra 630 was the first IDE Mac, but then the Quadra 630 was pro line when it came out in '94. the Centris was sort of bridging the gap between consumer and pro. LC's were still the consumer line back then. So again, new technology (for Apple at least) on pro hardware first.

    Still, that said, you're basically right about IDE, (they went back to SCSI next time they released pro hardware with the jump to PPC and the 6100, etc.) but the whole IDE thing is a bad example for me to have cited. SCSI was superior back then (14 devices per chain instead of 2, internal and external connectors instead of internal only, direct device-device data transfer instead of the computer having to process everything, and higher data speeds), and Apple viewed the move to IDE as a cost-cutting measure, because SCSI drives cost so much, not as an upgrade.

    I do sort of miss the numeric designations, it did clear up the specifications, but the clarity and organization of the product line is remarkably improved. Before Jobs came back, their product offerings were insanely confusing, and it was very difficult to figure out what the heck was going on, and what market various models were supposed to appeal to.

How often I found where I should be going only by setting out for somewhere else. -- R. Buckminster Fuller

Working...