I didn't claim it was based on the Yonah. There's nothing particularly wrong with the current Dothan based Celeron M.
Well, nothing wrong with it apart from the fact that it doesn't support SSE3, and hence cannot run current builds of OS X without SSE3->SSE2 emulation (which is not entirely stable).
Apple could easily recompile OS X without SSE3 support, but if they were planning to use pre-Yonah chips then I don't see why they would require SSE3 on current builds.
Well, nothing wrong with it apart from the fact that it doesn't support SSE3, and hence cannot run current builds of OS X without SSE3->SSE2 emulation (which is not entirely stable).
Apple could easily recompile OS X without SSE3 support, but if they were planning to use pre-Yonah chips then I don't see why they would require SSE3 on current builds.
That's peculiar. The dev docs all along have been saying not to rely on SSE3 being there. I suppose they could have changed their minds though when it got down to hardware being released and the newer OS builds.
Then again, they can change it again.
With the Celeron M 4xx series apparently delayed though, it does point at Apple using Core CPUs.
a celeron-m 4x0 in the ibook would make it a cheap, low-power and plenty fast machine. why would you not want that?
The Dothan Celeron M's have half the cache of a Pentium M, and lack enhanced SpeedStep. The lack of enhanced SpeedStep would only be a problem for users that leave their machine inactive for long periods of time while on batteries, since the Celeron M can't "deep sleep". The smaller L2 cache would only really hit power-users.
The Celeron M isn't really that bad a processor overall, but (as I mentioned in my previous post) Apple would have to remove the SSE3 requirement from OS X for it to be an option.
Edit: SSE3 is definitely a requirement of OS X itself. If you look at OSX86Project, there is all sorts of talk about patching kernels to map the SSE3 calls to SSE2 so that they can get OS X to run on their beige boxes.
The Dothan Celeron M's have half the cache of a Pentium M, and lack enhanced SpeedStep. The lack of enhanced SpeedStep would only be a problem for users that leave their machine inactive for long periods of time while on batteries, since the Celeron M can't "deep sleep". The smaller L2 cache would only really hit power-users.
The Celeron M isn't really that bad a processor overall, but (as I mentioned in my previous post) Apple would have to remove the SSE3 requirement from OS X for it to be an option.
i agree. that's why i suggested a c-m 4xx which is based on core solo and do support sse3 and speedstep.
The Dothan Celeron M's have half the cache of a Pentium M, and lack enhanced SpeedStep. The lack of enhanced SpeedStep would only be a problem for users that leave their machine inactive for long periods of time while on batteries, since the Celeron M can't "deep sleep". The smaller L2 cache would only really hit power-users.
I think another was that the C-M FSB is slightly slower than what the P-M had.
On the tests I've seein, the smaller L2 only seems to have a marginal, practically unnoticable hit for the same clock P-M. Because the full-cache is 2M, C-M is 1M, the extra didn't seem to help many programs any more than a few percent. The only real pain that made it less desirable was the lack of good power management features.
Apple's announcement today that it has dropped the 1.67GHz Intel Core Duo processor from its professional MacBook Pro line -- in favor of using faster chips -- presents the possibility that the company may now adopt that low-end 1.67GHz dual-core processor for use in its forthcoming consumer iBook notebooks.
Here's a quandry - why has Apple delayed all or virtually orders of the MBP? I can't believe Apple is delaying all preorders just so they could give the buyers a free upgrade. Why is it everybody is speculating on the ibook but no questioning of what the heck is going on with the MBP?
Well, my brand new 20" core duo iMac shure feels and operates like a prime time machine to me 8)
And hope to heaven nothing goes wrong with it either as well as a lack of available software being your issue. What utility you going to use to defrag or repair your OS? Also next year they'll get MUCH faster as well as the software being there for the most part.......Early adopters and the bleeding edge...no thanks. Not Interested. Yet.
And hope to heaven nothing goes wrong with it either as well as a lack of available software being your issue. What utility you going to use to defrag or repair your OS? Also next year they'll get MUCH faster as well as the software being there for the most part.......Early adopters and the bleeding edge...no thanks. Not Interested. Yet.
Defrag? Why?
As for repairs, is there a reason that those programs can't run in Rosetta? As long as it isn't a CPU-heavy and often used program, Rosetta performance should be good enough.
My guess: The Intel iMac was rolling off the assembly lines and ate all the chips Apple could get their hands on. They had assumed that they could also feed the MacBook Pro line when it finally was up running.
But the only way Intel could deliver was to spread it over three (and a half) different speeds and thus pre-deliver update.
My guess: The Intel iMac was rolling off the assembly lines and ate all the chips Apple could get their hands on. They had assumed that they could also feed the MacBook Pro line when it finally was up running.
But the only way Intel could deliver was to spread it over three (and a half) different speeds and thus pre-deliver update.
FYI the Intel iMac has no 1.67GHz processors, so why did Apple cancel all the 1.67GHz MBP orders?
FYI the Intel iMac has no 1.67GHz processors, so why did Apple cancel all the 1.67GHz MBP orders?
Because those are being stockpiled (and dropshipped to assembly plants) for the forthcoming 13.3" widescreen MacBooks (aka iBook & 12" PowerBook replacement) & Mac mini updates...?!?
The 1.6 Core Duo will be used in a 13.3" MacBook Pro that will effectively replace the 12" PowerBook G4.
The Core Solo's will still be used in iBooks [MacBooks?] and probably the mac mini's until 2 Rev's down the road or so. By that time there will be a big enough disparity between the the MacBook Pros and the consumer based notebooks.
How do you know? Are you making those decisions for Apple?
God, I hate it when people spew opinions like they're fact.
And hope to heaven nothing goes wrong with it either as well as a lack of available software being your issue. What utility you going to use to defrag or repair your OS? Also next year they'll get MUCH faster as well as the software being there for the most part.......Early adopters and the bleeding edge...no thanks. Not Interested. Yet.
Defrag - not necessary
lack of software - all software I want is available as a UB apart from aperture
repair the OS - with the OSx install disk that came with my iMac. I'm going to do regular disk-backups on an external harddisk also
next year much faster - sure, when is this not the case??? it is in every case bleeding fast compared to my athlon 1400 xp POS it replaces
Because those are being stockpiled (and dropshipped to assembly plants) for the forthcoming 13.3" widescreen MacBooks (aka iBook & 12" PowerBook replacement) & Mac mini updates...?!?
Yes grasshopper.
Methinks a Core Solo iBook replacement will be whereas Core Duo iBooks would be !
Comments
Originally posted by aegisdesign
I didn't claim it was based on the Yonah. There's nothing particularly wrong with the current Dothan based Celeron M.
Well, nothing wrong with it apart from the fact that it doesn't support SSE3, and hence cannot run current builds of OS X without SSE3->SSE2 emulation (which is not entirely stable).
Apple could easily recompile OS X without SSE3 support, but if they were planning to use pre-Yonah chips then I don't see why they would require SSE3 on current builds.
Originally posted by Marlor
Well, nothing wrong with it apart from the fact that it doesn't support SSE3, and hence cannot run current builds of OS X without SSE3->SSE2 emulation (which is not entirely stable).
Apple could easily recompile OS X without SSE3 support, but if they were planning to use pre-Yonah chips then I don't see why they would require SSE3 on current builds.
That's peculiar. The dev docs all along have been saying not to rely on SSE3 being there. I suppose they could have changed their minds though when it got down to hardware being released and the newer OS builds.
Then again, they can change it again.
With the Celeron M 4xx series apparently delayed though, it does point at Apple using Core CPUs.
Originally posted by tubgirl
a celeron-m 4x0 in the ibook would make it a cheap, low-power and plenty fast machine. why would you not want that?
The Dothan Celeron M's have half the cache of a Pentium M, and lack enhanced SpeedStep. The lack of enhanced SpeedStep would only be a problem for users that leave their machine inactive for long periods of time while on batteries, since the Celeron M can't "deep sleep". The smaller L2 cache would only really hit power-users.
The Celeron M isn't really that bad a processor overall, but (as I mentioned in my previous post) Apple would have to remove the SSE3 requirement from OS X for it to be an option.
Edit: SSE3 is definitely a requirement of OS X itself. If you look at OSX86Project, there is all sorts of talk about patching kernels to map the SSE3 calls to SSE2 so that they can get OS X to run on their beige boxes.
Originally posted by Marlor
The Dothan Celeron M's have half the cache of a Pentium M, and lack enhanced SpeedStep. The lack of enhanced SpeedStep would only be a problem for users that leave their machine inactive for long periods of time while on batteries, since the Celeron M can't "deep sleep". The smaller L2 cache would only really hit power-users.
The Celeron M isn't really that bad a processor overall, but (as I mentioned in my previous post) Apple would have to remove the SSE3 requirement from OS X for it to be an option.
i agree. that's why i suggested a c-m 4xx which is based on core solo and do support sse3 and speedstep.
Originally posted by aegisdesign
With the Celeron M 4xx series apparently delayed though, it does point at Apple using Core CPUs.
..and i'm quite sure we'll see these celerons in the intel 'ibooks' before summer.
Originally posted by tubgirl
..and i'm quite sure we'll see these celerons in the intel 'ibooks' before summer.
and i hope you're wrong
o-o, red iPod alert
Originally posted by Marlor
The Dothan Celeron M's have half the cache of a Pentium M, and lack enhanced SpeedStep. The lack of enhanced SpeedStep would only be a problem for users that leave their machine inactive for long periods of time while on batteries, since the Celeron M can't "deep sleep". The smaller L2 cache would only really hit power-users.
I think another was that the C-M FSB is slightly slower than what the P-M had.
On the tests I've seein, the smaller L2 only seems to have a marginal, practically unnoticable hit for the same clock P-M. Because the full-cache is 2M, C-M is 1M, the extra didn't seem to help many programs any more than a few percent. The only real pain that made it less desirable was the lack of good power management features.
Originally posted by AppleInsider
Apple's announcement today that it has dropped the 1.67GHz Intel Core Duo processor from its professional MacBook Pro line -- in favor of using faster chips -- presents the possibility that the company may now adopt that low-end 1.67GHz dual-core processor for use in its forthcoming consumer iBook notebooks.
Here's a quandry - why has Apple delayed all or virtually orders of the MBP? I can't believe Apple is delaying all preorders just so they could give the buyers a free upgrade. Why is it everybody is speculating on the ibook but no questioning of what the heck is going on with the MBP?
Originally posted by dutch pear
Well, my brand new 20" core duo iMac shure feels and operates like a prime time machine to me 8)
And hope to heaven nothing goes wrong with it either as well as a lack of available software being your issue. What utility you going to use to defrag or repair your OS? Also next year they'll get MUCH faster as well as the software being there for the most part.......Early adopters and the bleeding edge...no thanks. Not Interested. Yet.
Originally posted by DVD_Junkie
I can't believe Apple is delaying all preorders just so they could give the buyers a free upgrade.
Neither is anyone else.
Originally posted by applewiz
And hope to heaven nothing goes wrong with it either as well as a lack of available software being your issue. What utility you going to use to defrag or repair your OS? Also next year they'll get MUCH faster as well as the software being there for the most part.......Early adopters and the bleeding edge...no thanks. Not Interested. Yet.
Defrag? Why?
As for repairs, is there a reason that those programs can't run in Rosetta? As long as it isn't a CPU-heavy and often used program, Rosetta performance should be good enough.
But the only way Intel could deliver was to spread it over three (and a half) different speeds and thus pre-deliver update.
Originally posted by Anders
My guess: The Intel iMac was rolling off the assembly lines and ate all the chips Apple could get their hands on. They had assumed that they could also feed the MacBook Pro line when it finally was up running.
But the only way Intel could deliver was to spread it over three (and a half) different speeds and thus pre-deliver update.
FYI the Intel iMac has no 1.67GHz processors, so why did Apple cancel all the 1.67GHz MBP orders?
Originally posted by DVD_Junkie
FYI the Intel iMac has no 1.67GHz processors, so why did Apple cancel all the 1.67GHz MBP orders?
Because those are being stockpiled (and dropshipped to assembly plants) for the forthcoming 13.3" widescreen MacBooks (aka iBook & 12" PowerBook replacement) & Mac mini updates...?!?
Originally posted by ryanh
The 1.6 Core Duo will be used in a 13.3" MacBook Pro that will effectively replace the 12" PowerBook G4.
The Core Solo's will still be used in iBooks [MacBooks?] and probably the mac mini's until 2 Rev's down the road or so. By that time there will be a big enough disparity between the the MacBook Pros and the consumer based notebooks.
How do you know? Are you making those decisions for Apple?
God, I hate it when people spew opinions like they're fact.
Originally posted by applewiz
And hope to heaven nothing goes wrong with it either as well as a lack of available software being your issue. What utility you going to use to defrag or repair your OS? Also next year they'll get MUCH faster as well as the software being there for the most part.......Early adopters and the bleeding edge...no thanks. Not Interested. Yet.
Defrag - not necessary
lack of software - all software I want is available as a UB apart from aperture
repair the OS - with the OSx install disk that came with my iMac. I'm going to do regular disk-backups on an external harddisk also
next year much faster - sure, when is this not the case??? it is in every case bleeding fast compared to my athlon 1400 xp POS it replaces
Bleeding edge - well thusfar it just works
I'm pretty happy thusfar!
Originally posted by MacRonin
Because those are being stockpiled (and dropshipped to assembly plants) for the forthcoming 13.3" widescreen MacBooks (aka iBook & 12" PowerBook replacement) & Mac mini updates...?!?
Yes grasshopper.
Methinks a Core Solo iBook replacement will be
Originally posted by minderbinder
Funny, this article basically says what I've been saying in postings for the last month.
It just makes sense, people. Who is going to pay $1299 for an ibook with HALF the performance of a $1499 macbook?
Show me a $1499 macbook and i'll buy it.
Originally posted by Xool
Yes grasshopper.
Methinks a Core Solo iBook replacement will be
No weedhopper, you are too slow to snatch pebble from palm...
Me, I really want a nice little low voltage Core Duo tablet from Apple...
I see room for 3 sizes:
An 8.x" model, for the PDA/Pocket PC (aka; admins, geeks & medical staff) niche...
A sweet 13.3" model for the educational & consumer markets...
And an especially sweet model for the graphics pros, probably a nice 17.x" model...
Everything should be widescreen...
;^p