The Pentium Ms at half the Pentium 4 clock speeds are really competitive workwise.
I'm going to scoop up a mini with one of these babies as soon as they are available. It's going to finally be the solution to playing HD MPEG4 AVC on the current G4 computers.
I'm glad people are starting to get really excited about the switch from PowerPC to Intel. I think its mainly the fact that that Apple is making it really easy for us to switch. Espically with rosetta.
I'm glad that the PowerBook is probably going to reach above 2ghz! I think that will give the iBook and the PowerBook a little more seperation. I hope we get the iBook up to about 1.4-1.6
Will Apple be able to still innovate in hardware, distinguishing them from basic PCs such as FireWire and any future technology or will they just go along with what intel provides in chipsets and the like?
Will Apple be able to still innovate in hardware, distinguishing them from basic PCs such as FireWire and any future technology or will they just go along with what intel provides in chipsets and the like?
I would think so. The PowerMacs with the pentium 4s have Firewire.
I don't understand why people are focusing on this to the exclusion of the opposite problem. It seems to me to be a much tougher sell to convince people to buy Intel Macs when they come out. You know your software will work on the PPC Macs
This is a part of the second marketing problem. You have to convince buyers of a number of things. For Mac users you need to reassure them that MacIntels are still Macs, that MacIntels work just like Macs, and that your favorite software runs just like on your PPC Mac. I think that Apple can get this message out there, especially when filtered through Steve?s RDF.
The bigger hurdle is to convince non-Mac users who are thinking of switching that MacIntels are not PCs, because there is a real danger that the message that these folks will get is, ?Macs use Intel now, so they?re just the same as PCs.?
Thanks for the link - I was referring to the currently shipping peice of sh!t celeron, the G4 craps all over it. The Dothan is impressive, in terms of currently available Intel chips.
I would say your on the money, as apple will only be looking at Intel's 2006 offerings. But single cores for ibooks and dual cores for the PB's sounds like an acceptable differentiator.
Intel is such a huge company though. I don't see them stumbling as Moto and IBM have. Their roadmap looks awesome.
Well Intel has just finished stumbling with the P4. The difference between Intel and IBM is Intel is ~80% of the desktop market. They make a lot of money from this so if they stuff something up they will invest to fix it. IBM and Motorola's markets were in different places. Admittedly IBM was a bit closer to Apple's goals but they just weren't willing to invest in low power designs for a Powerbook.
Quote:
Originally posted by scavanger
The 64 bit version of Yohan is due out around the same time as Longhorn, there has been rumors that Intel might not reach that date, and Longhorn may have to be pushed back, since Longhorn is a 64bit OS.
I expect Apple will aim Leopard right around the time of their release too.
Some of you are so far away from reality that it's simply hard to believe. The first thing that people see in the computer is not the insides of the case. The first thing they see is the UI. That's the differentiating factor.
Having an intel inside the mac is an added bonus to marketing. No longer are macs seen as "slow" but at the same level as PCs. If you think that macs are "OMFG, macs are teh 1337 and so fast!!!11", you have your head very far up your ass. Macs have always been seen as slower than PC counter-parts, plain and simple.
Not only that, but I just read an article at "i, cringley" (http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20050609.html) that said he's under the impression that Intel HATES Microsoft. Heck, that's a good enough reason alone to team up with 'em. If we're going to save the world from the bloated vaporware that is Longhorn, we'd better team up with (or get bought by, according to Cringley) Intel. It's a fascinating read.
Seems reasonable. Microsoft is the only major reason Intel has had to keep the IA-32 architecture completely x86 compatible. Hence the horrible assembly code in writing for x86 compared to PowerPC (and the generally nicer design of PPC - of course design matters only to a limited amount versus dollars). However you almost never have to go down to assembly anymore since abstraction is quite high these days.
If Intel has Apple on board they can use them to gradually start ditching legacy features. If Apple has faster/better stuff then Dell, Microsoft starts getting pressure from Dell and HP and Leveno et al to follow suit in dumping legacy stuff. For example the new EFI (BIOS replacement) Intel has that nobody is using would be a nice start, especially since Apple is ditching OpenFirmware. I can't really see them using BIOS given all the inherent limitations (And yes, I know the development boxes do, but I don't expect Macs to use a Pentium 4 in shipping products either).
Intel gets a chance to gradually ditch legacy support with a very high profile company leading the way. Apple gets slightly better/nicer chips from Intel and some free marketing in return.
Hence the horrible assembly code in writing for x86 compared to PowerPC... (blah blah)
Intel have only themselves to blame for the state of x86. They have whimsically tinkered with the x86 ISA independently of Microsoft from the beginning. The horror that was 286 is ALL ON INTEL! Don't get me started on MMX and context switching...
Some of you are so far away from reality that it's simply hard to believe. The first thing that people see in the computer is not the insides of the case. The first thing they see is the UI. That's the differentiating factor.
Having an intel inside the mac is an added bonus to marketing. No longer are macs seen as "slow" but at the same level as PCs. If you think that macs are "OMFG, macs are teh 1337 and so fast!!!11", you have your head very far up your ass. Macs have always been seen as slower than PC counter-parts, plain and simple.
No he's right nathan22t, but Apple still has one more thing to do to put that to rest. Use standard PC graphics cards pretty much out of the box. That's it, and Apple, and all the other PC manufacturers will be on an equal playing field.
Put the argument the other way around - why would you not by a Mac? Better design, better user experience, better bundled software, oh and if you have legacy software, it'll run Windows too!
Seems reasonable. Microsoft is the only major reason Intel has had to keep the IA-32 architecture completely x86 compatible. Hence the horrible assembly code in writing for x86 compared to PowerPC (and the generally nicer design of PPC - of course design matters only to a limited amount versus dollars). However you almost never have to go down to assembly anymore since abstraction is quite high these days.
If Intel has Apple on board they can use them to gradually start ditching legacy features. If Apple has faster/better stuff then Dell, Microsoft starts getting pressure from Dell and HP and Leveno et al to follow suit in dumping legacy stuff. For example the new EFI (BIOS replacement) Intel has that nobody is using would be a nice start, especially since Apple is ditching OpenFirmware. I can't really see them using BIOS given all the inherent limitations (And yes, I know the development boxes do, but I don't expect Macs to use a Pentium 4 in shipping products either).
Intel gets a chance to gradually ditch legacy support with a very high profile company leading the way. Apple gets slightly better/nicer chips from Intel and some free marketing in return.
i totally agree. the reasons you have highlighted above explain quite well why Intel CEO Paul O. seemed genuinely very thrilled and happy.
I bought that machine because I was hot'n'heavy HOOKED on online gaming mayhem. I was also willing to trade off some performance to move away from big desktops. Now I just don't have time to game very much and Tiger looks the bomb...
When Apple starts delivering a TRUE top-of-line desktop replacement Powerbook, I will gladly replace all my Windows software, sell the Overam and come back to Apple. It can be a big, heavy, short battery-life honker. I don't care. Give me some real POWER...
If you look at the transition, you will discover, that the first Apple Intel based products realised will be laptops, and more generally any Apple computers based on a G4.
The replacement of the G5 will come later.
It make sense.
Currently the powermac G5 dual 2,7 ghz rocks, but the laptops are far behind the centrino in term of battery life.
If I had an advice to give, it will be :
- you can buy a G5 right now
- you should wait before buying a laptop.
We can predict that Apple will have some problems with the laptops sales, especially for the powerbook.
In the contrary the sales of G5 based computes will be less in troubles, because currently there isn't anything faster to run OS X based software.
Comments
http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20050609.html
jj
Originally posted by pdubyu
The Pentium Ms at half the Pentium 4 clock speeds are really competitive workwise.
I'm going to scoop up a mini with one of these babies as soon as they are available. It's going to finally be the solution to playing HD MPEG4 AVC on the current G4 computers.
I'm glad people are starting to get really excited about the switch from PowerPC to Intel. I think its mainly the fact that that Apple is making it really easy for us to switch. Espically with rosetta.
I'm glad that the PowerBook is probably going to reach above 2ghz! I think that will give the iBook and the PowerBook a little more seperation. I hope we get the iBook up to about 1.4-1.6
Originally posted by Vvmp
Will Apple be able to still innovate in hardware, distinguishing them from basic PCs such as FireWire and any future technology or will they just go along with what intel provides in chipsets and the like?
I would think so. The PowerMacs with the pentium 4s have Firewire.
Originally posted by w_parietti22
I would think so. The PowerMacs with the pentium 4s have Firewire.
Maybe that's because Intel just started including firewire on their motherboards...I wonder if this was why
Originally posted by BRussell
I don't understand why people are focusing on this to the exclusion of the opposite problem. It seems to me to be a much tougher sell to convince people to buy Intel Macs when they come out. You know your software will work on the PPC Macs
This is a part of the second marketing problem. You have to convince buyers of a number of things. For Mac users you need to reassure them that MacIntels are still Macs, that MacIntels work just like Macs, and that your favorite software runs just like on your PPC Mac. I think that Apple can get this message out there, especially when filtered through Steve?s RDF.
The bigger hurdle is to convince non-Mac users who are thinking of switching that MacIntels are not PCs, because there is a real danger that the message that these folks will get is, ?Macs use Intel now, so they?re just the same as PCs.?
Apple?s new slogan, ?It?s the OS, stupid.?
YonahBook in early 2006, or 64-bit MeromBook in late 2006?
Originally posted by atomicham
Well, I am basing them using the Celeron in the iBook on power savings not performance (if I understand you right).
From the Inquirer
Thanks for the link - I was referring to the currently shipping peice of sh!t celeron, the G4 craps all over it. The Dothan is impressive, in terms of currently available Intel chips.
I would say your on the money, as apple will only be looking at Intel's 2006 offerings. But single cores for ibooks and dual cores for the PB's sounds like an acceptable differentiator.
Originally posted by jaffi
Intel is such a huge company though. I don't see them stumbling as Moto and IBM have. Their roadmap looks awesome.
Well Intel has just finished stumbling with the P4. The difference between Intel and IBM is Intel is ~80% of the desktop market. They make a lot of money from this so if they stuff something up they will invest to fix it. IBM and Motorola's markets were in different places. Admittedly IBM was a bit closer to Apple's goals but they just weren't willing to invest in low power designs for a Powerbook.
Originally posted by scavanger
The 64 bit version of Yohan is due out around the same time as Longhorn, there has been rumors that Intel might not reach that date, and Longhorn may have to be pushed back, since Longhorn is a 64bit OS.
I expect Apple will aim Leopard right around the time of their release too.
Having an intel inside the mac is an added bonus to marketing. No longer are macs seen as "slow" but at the same level as PCs. If you think that macs are "OMFG, macs are teh 1337 and so fast!!!11", you have your head very far up your ass. Macs have always been seen as slower than PC counter-parts, plain and simple.
Originally posted by bredlo
Not only that, but I just read an article at "i, cringley" (http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20050609.html) that said he's under the impression that Intel HATES Microsoft. Heck, that's a good enough reason alone to team up with 'em. If we're going to save the world from the bloated vaporware that is Longhorn, we'd better team up with (or get bought by, according to Cringley) Intel. It's a fascinating read.
Seems reasonable. Microsoft is the only major reason Intel has had to keep the IA-32 architecture completely x86 compatible. Hence the horrible assembly code in writing for x86 compared to PowerPC (and the generally nicer design of PPC - of course design matters only to a limited amount versus dollars). However you almost never have to go down to assembly anymore since abstraction is quite high these days.
If Intel has Apple on board they can use them to gradually start ditching legacy features. If Apple has faster/better stuff then Dell, Microsoft starts getting pressure from Dell and HP and Leveno et al to follow suit in dumping legacy stuff. For example the new EFI (BIOS replacement) Intel has that nobody is using would be a nice start, especially since Apple is ditching OpenFirmware. I can't really see them using BIOS given all the inherent limitations (And yes, I know the development boxes do, but I don't expect Macs to use a Pentium 4 in shipping products either).
Intel gets a chance to gradually ditch legacy support with a very high profile company leading the way. Apple gets slightly better/nicer chips from Intel and some free marketing in return.
I want it! I want it!
(provided it doesn't have trusted computing)
Originally posted by g3pro
Macs have always been seen as slower than PC counter-parts, plain and simple.
He is now speaking in absolutes...
The dark side clouds Everything
Originally posted by Electric Monk
Hence the horrible assembly code in writing for x86 compared to PowerPC... (blah blah)
Intel have only themselves to blame for the state of x86. They have whimsically tinkered with the x86 ISA independently of Microsoft from the beginning. The horror that was 286 is ALL ON INTEL! Don't get me started on MMX and context switching...
Originally posted by g3pro
Some of you are so far away from reality that it's simply hard to believe. The first thing that people see in the computer is not the insides of the case. The first thing they see is the UI. That's the differentiating factor.
Having an intel inside the mac is an added bonus to marketing. No longer are macs seen as "slow" but at the same level as PCs. If you think that macs are "OMFG, macs are teh 1337 and so fast!!!11", you have your head very far up your ass. Macs have always been seen as slower than PC counter-parts, plain and simple.
No he's right nathan22t, but Apple still has one more thing to do to put that to rest. Use standard PC graphics cards pretty much out of the box. That's it, and Apple, and all the other PC manufacturers will be on an equal playing field.
Well not equal. They can't compete with OS X.
Originally posted by strobe
I want it! I want it!
(provided it doesn't have trusted computing)
wtf?
......
anyway,
technical details aside,
hopefully Yonah will start to quieten down the unwashed masses and their 'my ghz is faster than yours and dual-core this and that'.... <ctrl-c>
i had a point... but i'm distracted wondering wtf is that picture from??
Originally posted by Electric Monk
Seems reasonable. Microsoft is the only major reason Intel has had to keep the IA-32 architecture completely x86 compatible. Hence the horrible assembly code in writing for x86 compared to PowerPC (and the generally nicer design of PPC - of course design matters only to a limited amount versus dollars). However you almost never have to go down to assembly anymore since abstraction is quite high these days.
If Intel has Apple on board they can use them to gradually start ditching legacy features. If Apple has faster/better stuff then Dell, Microsoft starts getting pressure from Dell and HP and Leveno et al to follow suit in dumping legacy stuff. For example the new EFI (BIOS replacement) Intel has that nobody is using would be a nice start, especially since Apple is ditching OpenFirmware. I can't really see them using BIOS given all the inherent limitations (And yes, I know the development boxes do, but I don't expect Macs to use a Pentium 4 in shipping products either).
Intel gets a chance to gradually ditch legacy support with a very high profile company leading the way. Apple gets slightly better/nicer chips from Intel and some free marketing in return.
i totally agree. the reasons you have highlighted above explain quite well why Intel CEO Paul O. seemed genuinely very thrilled and happy.
http://forums.appleinsider.com/showt...threadid=47919
I bought that machine because I was hot'n'heavy HOOKED on online gaming mayhem. I was also willing to trade off some performance to move away from big desktops. Now I just don't have time to game very much and Tiger looks the bomb...
When Apple starts delivering a TRUE top-of-line desktop replacement Powerbook, I will gladly replace all my Windows software, sell the Overam and come back to Apple. It can be a big, heavy, short battery-life honker. I don't care. Give me some real POWER...
The replacement of the G5 will come later.
It make sense.
Currently the powermac G5 dual 2,7 ghz rocks, but the laptops are far behind the centrino in term of battery life.
If I had an advice to give, it will be :
- you can buy a G5 right now
- you should wait before buying a laptop.
We can predict that Apple will have some problems with the laptops sales, especially for the powerbook.
In the contrary the sales of G5 based computes will be less in troubles, because currently there isn't anything faster to run OS X based software.