Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
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This discussion has been archived.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? More

Apple Planning Intel iBook Debut for January?

Comments Filter:

  • How many? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by geddes ( 533463 ) on Thursday November 17, 2005 @10:31AM (#14051903)
    How many programs have "fat" binaries, with intel versions?

    • Re:How many? (Score:5, Informative)

      by ciroknight ( 601098 ) on Thursday November 17, 2005 @10:48AM (#14052057)
      "enough". Apple's been silently distrubiting updates as fat-binaries. It's very likely you won't notice, or even care for that matter, but I'm sure in a few [weeks/months/years] someone will have a binary stripper to remove the unnessicary part of the Universal Binary.

      I think Apple just gave mid summer as an estimate to give the developers of 3rd party applications more time, as well as themselves if they needed it. Now they've figured out that the developers were quick to transition, everyone's bitting at the chops, and delaying it any longer seems to be a bad idea. Can't wait to get my hands on one.

      • Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)

        by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Thursday November 17, 2005 @11:03AM (#14052215)
        Comment removed based on user account deletion

      • Re:How many? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by nine-times ( 778537 ) <nine.times@gmail.com> on Thursday November 17, 2005 @12:04PM (#14052919) Homepage
        I think Apple just gave mid summer as an estimate to give the developers of 3rd party applications more time, as well as themselves if they needed it. Now they've figured out that the developers were quick to transition, everyone's bitting at the chops, and delaying it any longer seems to be a bad idea. Can't wait to get my hands on one.

        Makes me wonder: is this jump in the schedule because developers were quick to transition, or because customers were holding off their purchases until they saw the new Intel models?

        • Re:How many? (Score:3, Insightful)

          by tverbeek ( 457094 )
          Makes me wonder: is this jump in the schedule because developers were quick to transition, or because customers were holding off their purchases until they saw the new Intel models?

          I'd think the iBook market would be one of the least affected by this phenomenon, since the lion's share of potential iBook buyers - people who get their product announcements from TV commercials - aren't even aware that there's a switch in the pipeline. And if Apple's suffering from "purchase delay" now, imagine how bad it'll

      • Re:How many? (Score:5, Funny)

        by Randolpho ( 628485 ) on Thursday November 17, 2005 @12:44PM (#14053382) Homepage Journal
        someone will have a binary stripper

        Will he get a binary lap dance?

    • Re:How many? (Score:3, Informative)

      by Beautyon ( 214567 )
      There are so many:

      http://wiki.osx86project.org/wiki/index.php/X86_so ftware [osx86project.org]
    • How many programs have "fat" binaries, with intel versions?

      I believe that purchasers of consumer machines, like the iBook, are more heavily dependent on the bundled software that Apple provides. Keep in mind that the consumer machines come with AppleWorks, a basic suite with word processing, spreadsheet, etc. Coming from Apple all of the bundled software will be native Intel code.

      As far as other software, with the exception of games and computationally intensive programs - the latter being odd to fi

  • oh, and one more thing... (Score:5, Funny)

    by BushCheney08 ( 917605 ) on Thursday November 17, 2005 @10:32AM (#14051912)
    "Oh, and one more thing...That whole thing about switching to Intel was just a joke..."

  • All right (Score:3, Insightful)

    by _vSyncBomb ( 50710 ) on Thursday November 17, 2005 @10:33AM (#14051924) Journal
    Well, it should be no surprise, after that high-end Apple laptops improved *not* *one* *hertz* on the high end since January. Still this is pretty big news, since the PowerBook has had to advance in every other area in the interrim--backlit keyboards, scrolling trackpad, now high-density displays.

    But it will be nice to again have a PowerBook that is actually somewhat fast.

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

      by _vSyncBomb ( 50710 )
      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:3, Informative)

        by mstra ( 38238 )
        Yonah would have to be hobbled like the dude in that Heinlein story

        "Harrison Bergeron" was a short story by Kurt Vonnegut, not Heinlein.

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

      by KingVance ( 815011 )
      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

    • Re:All right (Score:3, Interesting)

      by FFFish ( 7567 )
      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.

  • Intel- "Ready"? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by adavies42 ( 746183 ) on Thursday November 17, 2005 @10:33AM (#14051930)
    What the hell does "Intel ready" mean? That sounds like a PPC iBook which can have an Intel chip swapped in, which is nonsense. Is this just another meaningless headline from our illustrious editors?

    • Re:Intel- "Ready"? (Score:3, Informative)

      by ciroknight ( 601098 )
      Intel-"Ready": All binaries (libraries, applications, frameworks, drivers, kernel) are set up to run on either PPC or Intel archtectures.
      This means the software is "Intel-Ready", just as your computer might come "Internet-ready"; it has all the software installed and configured for any number of different internet connections, but it is up to you to choose which one to use.

      The only issue I see is dust-busting the system to remove all the cruft you don't need; Fat binaries are a waste of space if you're

  • Leaked Picture link here! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 17, 2005 @10:33AM (#14051933)
    Leaked Picture link here! [mit.edu]

  • iBook = Mac Mini, no? (Score:5, Interesting)

    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:iBook = Mac Mini, no? (Score:5, Interesting)

      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.

      • It's the Apple Way. (Score:4, Funny)

        by solios ( 53048 ) on Thursday November 17, 2005 @04:27PM (#14055965) Homepage
        At least since the iMac, probably since the 6500 (the first personal computer- x86 OR PPC -to break 300mhz), Apple has ALWAYS lead the jump to new and improved technology and aesthetics with the consumer hardware. The pro hardware comes along later - learning from flaws in the revA consumer stuff and fitting in new features in the process.

        There's also a good chunk of mac fanboi out there that are all OMG!!!!! GLEEEEE!!!!!!!! when Apple releases new kit. We're talking the kind of people that bought an iMac, then turned right around and bought a blue-and-white G3 when those were released.

        Also... the big advantage of the mini is you're not bound to a specific keyboard and monitor. Much as I love my iBook, the keyboard blows compared to my old powerbook and a 12" display makes my face hurt (it's nice but it's too damned small for my eyes) - the mini lets me use my existing pile of mid-90s Apple CRTs (DVI -> VGA adapter with a VGA -> 25-pin Mac adapter plugged into that, FOR THE WIN!) and my existing keyboards and input devices. It's certainly true that if you're starting fresh (say, just out of high school), a notebook is a much better bang for the buck... but if your house is the Macintosh equivalent of an elephant graveyard, the mini fits into that magic slot of "slightly more expensive than a processor upgrade."
        • "Apple has ALWAYS lead the jump to new and improved technology and aesthetics with the consumer hardware. The pro hardware comes along later"

          Right, like when they introduced the 68030, 68040, PPC601, PPC603, PPC604, PPC603e, PPC604e, G3, G4 and G5 chips in their professional hardware first, then let it trickle down to the consumer line. Or SATA. Or Firewire. Or Firewire 800. Or USB 2. Or DDR RAM. Or the switch from NuBUS to PCI. Or the switch from PCI to PCI-X. Or the switch from SCSI to IDE. Or introduci

  • WTD does *next* January mean? (Score:4, Funny)

    by logicnazi ( 169418 ) <gerdesNO@SPAMinvariant.org> on Thursday November 17, 2005 @10:37AM (#14051959) Homepage
    Does that mean the next january which will occur or the next one after 'this' january. The first seems way too soon (three months!).

    God I hate this particular phrase. It confuses me almost every time. I wish we had some clearer system where we would just say a number before the month/day to indicate how many away it was for small numbers. So instead of next january meaning the first january after this we could say 'the first january' and the next one would be 'the second january'.

    So could someone please reply and tell me which it is. Also wouldn't hurt to add it in the story.
    • Lol. He means "In January, Apple to release Intel based iBook". Why would they be talking about the January in 2007 anyway?

    • Re:WTD does *next* January mean? (Score:4, Interesting)

      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".
  • I'm guessing they'll go with the single core since the gap between the ibook and powerbook is already so small, especially the 12" versions.

    (personally, I don't see the point of the 12" powerbook at all. imo the ibook looks a lot better at 12" - the metal look suits the larger laptops better since they are wider and seem thinner. the 12" powerbook looks like a fat, heavy piece of metal. ymmv)
    • My money is on the "Celeron-M" being in both the iBook and the Mini (if the Mini survives the transition). That would allow them to put single-core Pentium-M in most of the Powerbook line, with the dual-core only in special pro models.

      Apple will play dual-core laptops for all the margin they're worth, which means there's no way they will be introduced at the bottom or even the middle of the line-up.

  • One problem with them going mainstream (Score:3, Insightful)

    by external400kdiskette ( 930221 ) on Thursday November 17, 2005 @10:38AM (#14051971)
    Is if they continue to put cheap stuff in their entry-level machines which are still always going to be more expensive than the windows equivilants. Specifically in the ram and video card department. I mean the people who want OSX anyway are always going to pay a few hundred extra because they want that but to increase market share and become more mainstream I really think they have to make sure they offer the right ammount of power/screenquality/ram/whatever else for the $ , not just a cool physical design.

  • DVD Jon (Score:3, Insightful)

    by HeetMyser ( 655524 ) on Thursday November 17, 2005 @10:38AM (#14051975)
    Although I'm very (VERY) interested to see what Apple's design crew comes up with for these Intel-based machines, the real drama is going to involve watching OS X make its way into the wild, whacky world of x86 commodity hardware. Surely this is going to be one of the most sought-after hacks in the world after the first final release of OS X Intel hits the streets. God help whichever Apple lackey is within 100 yards of SJ when this happens.

  • Found out via a few 'poison apples' at the Duke... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by digitaldc ( 879047 ) * on Thursday November 17, 2005 @10:40AM (#14051987)
    ...of Edinburgh pub.

    "I don't see a need for Apple to go much below $1,000 unless they are going to offer a really low-end iBook with really low-end features," he said. "Cheap (Windows-based) notebooks are just that. Cheap. They have low-resolution, small hard drives, little memory. Apple doesn't need to compete their. They could keep the price the same and offer more. If you're going to lower prices (on iBooks), then lower them on the high end, and add a third, higher-end model that comes at $1,299."

    Spelling nazis rejoice!

  • Humor & irony (Score:3, Insightful)

    by klubar ( 591384 ) on Thursday November 17, 2005 @10:42AM (#14052008) Homepage
    Does anyone appreciate the irony in Microsoft using the PowerPC chip in its XBox and Apple using Intel in its laptops? Both need to implement "on the fly" code conversion to maintain compatibility with older programs. I wonder who has done a better job at an universal converter. (With the XBox 360 some programs have not been made compatible. I wonder if Apple can hit 100%?)

    Of course, as of right now Intel is behind the curve in performance compared to AMD. Presumably if MS can get custom PPC chips, Apple will be getting the hottest and latest Intel chips--maybe even custom.

    • Re:Humor & irony (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Yahweh Doesn't Exist ( 906833 ) on Thursday November 17, 2005 @10:45AM (#14052032)
      I expect Apple to get 100% compatibility via Rosetta quite easily. the only difference is speed - MS needs to run games in "real time" whereas computer programs being a bit slower isn't too much of a problem.

    • Re:Humor & irony (Score:3, Informative)

      by masklinn ( 823351 )
      Presumably if MS can get custom PPC chips, Apple will be getting the hottest and latest Intel chips--maybe even custom.

      The MS guys have been working with IBM engineers for 2 years to build the XBOX360 chip (based on the IBM PPE design, which is also PS3's Cell root and more than likely the base of Revolution's CPU as well. A completely different beast than the Power4 which was the base for Apple's Power970 chips)

      • 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

  • 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.

  • It figures... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by XxtraLarGe ( 551297 ) on Thursday November 17, 2005 @10:45AM (#14052034) Journal
    I just bought my PowerBook G4. But then again, it runs all my current software/games flawlessly. As much as I love my Macs, any time I've bought first gen products they've been sub-par. I think I'll wait a year or two so that there's a good enough collection of native software available.
  • Starting to look jealously at some of the offerings out there in the PC world.. not paying powerbook prices for the 12" one they have, and it'd be nice to have widescreen. My 15" albook is nice but kinda big to be really portable.

    I'm sure apple won't dissapoint though.. been waiting to upgrade like many powerbook owners currently.

    What will be interesting to see is what happens to VirtualPC.. no CAD tools for OSX, so that's the only alternative out there.

  • This is why I love Apple (Score:4, Interesting)

    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.
       
    • Management of deadlines is as much about not missing deadlines as it is setting realistic timeframes. If someone tells me a project will be done in six months and they complete it in six weeks, I want to know why the original timeline was so poorly calculated.
    • Not exactly. Apple has had its share of delayed product. Just take the promised "3GHz PowerBook" that never arrived for instance -- that's what got Apple into this whole Intel mess to begin with.

  • Greater performance than current G4? (Score:5, Interesting)

    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.

  • Could? More like "had better". (Score:4, Insightful)

    by jasenj1 ( 575309 ) on Thursday November 17, 2005 @10:54AM (#14052114)

    "The dual-core Yonah chip could very likely deliver performance greater than Apple's current G4-based PowerBooks."

    Could? The dual-core Yonah's had better deliver performance better than any of Apple's current laptop lineup. One of the main reasons for the switch to Intel is the sad state of Motorola and IBM's low-power chips.

    Other places [appleinsider.com] are indicating that Apple will release the Powerbooks first because the higher performance CPUs are what Intel has available now, with the lower performance ones coming in the Spring.

    Not news. Merely rumor.

    - Jasen.

  • 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?

    • Re:I want to see... (Score:3, Insightful)

      by radish ( 98371 )
      It's called "suspend", and it's an option on every notebook I've used in the past 5 years.

    • Re:I want to see... (Score:3, Informative)

      by adam1101 ( 805240 )

      ...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?

      My old ThinkPad 600X takes many seconds to start up from suspend. OTOH my new ThinkPad X40 wakes in about a second. I open it, count to one, and start working. Done and done. Hibernation is optional (and very nice on this machine, about 20 seconds cold start, I basically use it instead of power off).

    • Re:I want to see... (Score:4, Informative)

      by John Newman ( 444192 ) on Thursday November 17, 2005 @02:53PM (#14054859)
      I think the main difference between Suspend and Sleep is the power usage. Macs use only a few % of power per day in sleep, so it's perfectly realistic to *never* turn off your laptop, even if you go for a week without using it. Whereas my friends' Dells use so much power in Suspend mode that if they leave it for more than a day they risk draining the battery. I also haven't seen wake-on-open (vs. wake-on-keypress), but that must due to cheap manufacturers' implementations. I can't imagine there's a difference between the two at a BIOS level.

      I don't know if the difference in power usage represents something fundamental, or just different designers being more or less careful with power management. I don't really doubt that Apple will be just as careful with their Intel designs as they have been with their PowePC ones.

  • Right Timing (Score:5, Insightful)

    by _eb0la_reston_ ( 930919 ) on Thursday November 17, 2005 @11:00AM (#14052180) Homepage
    The announcement date (Jan 2006 at Macworld San Francisco) makes sense: January sales figures are flatline.

    Apple, usually makes new product announcements on January:

        * 2005 - iPod Shuffle
        * 2004 - iPod Mini / XServe G5
        * 2003 - 20" Cinema Display + New Powermacs + New iBooks + iLife + Safari + Final Cut Express
        * 2002 - New iMacs + 12" iBook + iPhoto + OSX installed by default on new machines...
        * 2001 - Titanium iBook.

  • Is the G4 really that good? (Score:5, Interesting)

    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?

    • Re:Is the G4 really that good? (Score:5, Informative)

      by pohl ( 872 ) * on Thursday November 17, 2005 @11:38AM (#14052612) Homepage
      Yeah, the G4 really is a nice little laptop processor if you can feed it instructions and data fast enough. Sadly, most G4 machines were unable to do this consistently because of the bus and the type of memory modules. The latest iteration of the PowerBooks [apple.com] made an improvement in this regard. The processor isn't much faster than the last rev, but these machines feel much faster, probably because of the increased bandwidth between the processor and memory. For audio applications like GarageBand, the AltiVec [wikipedia.org] unit really increases the effective instructions-per-clock. The way they've offloaded a lot of work onto the GPU has helped to extend the life of the G4 too.

      I'm sure they've run out of ways to squeeze more out of it, though.

    • Re:Is the G4 really that good? (Score:5, Informative)

      by Phillup ( 317168 ) on Thursday November 17, 2005 @12:06PM (#14052953)
      I think what they are trying to say is that the intel system, running emulation, might deliver performance greater than a G4 running native apps.

      'Course... that's a wild ass guess.

      But, it "fits" the facts a lot better.

      Especially when you consider that right off the bat there will still be a lot of non-native software. People really will expect to install a lot of their *current* software.

  • Highly variable predictions from ThinkSecret (Score:4, Informative)

    by Been on TV ( 886187 ) on Thursday November 17, 2005 @11:12AM (#14052319) Homepage

    The highly reliable sources ThinkSecret often cites, most of the time produces so, so predictions.

    Statments like "The dual-core Yonah chip could very likely deliver performance greater than Apple's current G4-based PowerBooks." does not sound too reliable. Why on earth would Apple intro systems with less performance than current models -- and I am not just thinking in terms of real processsor performance, but perceived system performance? They'd be the laughing stock of the industry. Unless they can put a system into the market that gives a noticeable better performance than what is possible with the G4, they will wait. Apple does not want the Intel experience to be mediocre. They want it to be top notch.

    I find the predictions AppleInsider made last Friday to be more sensible, but I am still not sure if Apple would put the 32-bit Yonah into the iMac, as it may be seen as a step back from the 64-bit G5. I've commented on Apple's 64-bit roadmap and how to get there [andwest.com], mentioning av 64-bit Yonah, which is really the Merom. Perhaps Intel may have been able to bring this chip forward in time from fall 2006 to this spring, enabling Apple to go straight to 64-bit from day one.

  • A great opportunity for Apple to go tablet... (Score:4, Interesting)

    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!

  • Pro vs. Consumer (Score:4, Informative)

    by MacGod ( 320762 ) on Thursday November 17, 2005 @11:23AM (#14052444)
    If this rumour proves true, it will be an interesting shift for Apple. Apple has traditionally kept its consumer machines at much lower performance levels than its pro machines. The notable exception being the current G5 iMac vs G4 PowerBook. But I can't remember a time when the iBooks would outpace the PowerBooks (or the iMacs outpace the PowerMacs). Yet with the Intel upgrade (as TFA said), a Yonah-iBook would likely perform more strongly (on universal binary apps anyway) than a G4 PowerBook. Interesting times indeed....

  • Could very likely?!? (Score:5, Informative)

    by Guspaz ( 556486 ) on Thursday November 17, 2005 @11:39AM (#14052627)
    The dual-core Yonah chip could very likely deliver performance greater than Apple's current G4-based PowerBooks.

    Could very likely? That's quite a bit of uncertainty.

    The Pentium M is roughly performance-equivalent to an Athlon64 of the same clockspeed (The PM is still a bit weak in the multimedia department, but Yonah is expected to fix that. The statement holds true for gaming, at least). Assuming that the dual core Yonah ships at the same max speed as current Dothan processors, that means 2.26GHz. That's roughly an Athlon64 X2 4400+. The PowerBook ships with a single 1.67GHz G4. I think it is safe to say that the processor "definately destroys performance-wise" rather than "could very likely deliver performance greater than".

  • A prediction (Score:5, Interesting)

    by dgrgich ( 179442 ) <drew@NOsPaM.grgich.org> on Thursday November 17, 2005 @11:40AM (#14052639)
    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.

    • Re:A prediction (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Glock27 ( 446276 )
      I'm ECSTATIC about this news - as long as the rumored ability to dual-boot Windows XP is a reality.

      I think it's even better than that - I think there'll be affordable solutions allowing Windows apps to run at basically full speed under OSX, in a sandbox where they can't harm the rest of the OSX system. Should be sweet, no dual booting!

    • Re:A prediction (Score:3, Interesting)

      by smilinggoat ( 443212 )
      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.

  • Please give me resolutions that don't suck... (Score:5, Interesting)

    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.
    • I agree that the 12 inch powerbook screen needs to be updated, and I have a feeling it's about to change to a widescreen format. But iBooks are meant for students, and doing basic tasks. If you need more screen get a Powerbook. The last revision of the 15 inch powerbook saw an increase in the screen resolution. I have an older tiBook, and I love the screen as-is.

      Don't forget about an external monitor through DVI. I recently went laptop shopping (I needed an XP machine), and I couldn't find a laptop with
    • The low resolution is because of, not in spite of, Mac OS being a graphics platform. Apple displays are all (with the exception of the 14" iBook) 100dpi. This means it is very easy to ensure that things are the same size on screen as on paper. Increasing the resolution by a small amount would introduce scaling artifacts when enlarging any pixmap UI elements. I would imagine that they will probably only upgrade to 150 or even 200dpi (I have a 225dpi display on my Nokia 770, and it is very, very nice). W

  • 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.

  • Does this make sense? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by snStarter ( 212765 ) on Thursday November 17, 2005 @02:22PM (#14054531)
    Let's see - Apple is going to upgrade the iBook with Intel and, if the rumors hold, it's going to outperform their high-end PowerBook line?

    Does this make sense? Unless the iBooks are so crippled as to be totally uninteresting (slow graphics, very limited memory, bad bus speeds) why would anyone buy an old technology PowerBook?

    Now I can see Apple doing the Mac Mini first but not the iBook if its performance really outstrips the G4 PowerBook.

Slashdot Top Deals

One man's constant is another man's variable. -- A.J. Perlis

Close