[MacMinium]

Does anybody think there wil be an Intel PowerBook coming in the very near future? If so what do you think the specs might be?

[SpunkyFeinstein]

Yes

[Randman]

Very near future = 2006 or 2007, yes.

[Chuckit]

Not that near.

[d.fine]

[runejoha]

Originally Posted by MacMinium

Does anybody think there wil be an Intel PowerBook coming in the very near future? If so what do you think the specs might be?

The last major update for PBs was autumn 2003, September. The last updates are without importance (trackpad and some Mhz). The last "update" was in March. Given 9 months between each upgrade, the next intel PB will be here just beforte xmas.

The upgrade is VERY delayed, so the Intel PB will be here ASASP. The PBs are today using a older generation CPUs than everybody else. The loss of PB G5s was one of the main arguments for switching to Intel.

Full support for Intel CPUs will come with Leopard, so it is realistic to switch within Long horn and Leopard is released. Give it a year before considering a Intel Powerbook :-)

[mgl]

It doesn't matter when we want them to be here, but when Apple has the chips to put in them. Most people believe that the first Intel PowerBooks will have Yonah (dual core, 32 bit, Pentium M family) chips. Yonah won't be in shipping products until Q1 or Q2 2006. I would expect that Apple would ship PowerBooks with them as soon as the chips are available in quantity. So sometime between January and June 06, we should have Intel PowerBooks. Given that date range, there should be one more update with G4 processors, probably sometime between September and the end of the year.

[runejoha]

Originally Posted by mgl

It doesn't matter when we want them to be here, but when Apple has the chips to put in them. Most people believe that the first Intel PowerBooks will have Yonah (dual core, 32 bit, Pentium M family) chips. Yonah won't be in shipping products until Q1 or Q2 2006. I would expect that Apple would ship PowerBooks with them as soon as the chips are available in quantity. So sometime between January and June 06, we should have Intel PowerBooks. Given that date range, there should be one more update with G4 processors, probably sometime between September and the end of the year.

Another G4 "update"? I would't bet on it! !!! :-) The G4 line has been out of date for a year at least. But who knows!

Apples early statement for switching CPUs could mean that they allready have serious update plans for the PBs before 2006. Considering it is ON TIME, it wouldn't suprise me.

But again, we do not know before the day it is released :-) (but not later than leopard and long horn next year)

[TiDual]

Where does this "before xMas" thing come from. Jobs *explicitly* said the first intel-based macs would begin appearing a year from now (now=WWDC). This wasn't just bluffing: Apple has to be honest about this since all developers are planning resources accordingly. There's no way it's all going to happen 6 months earlier than announced. Now, it might be reasonable to say the first machines that change are the high-end (Pmacs + Pbooks) ... but even that is not a given. So the guess of June 06 is, in my view a somewhat optimistic (but realistic) possibility. Wishing for xMas is not going to make it happen.

Furthermore, Jobs stated there would be more PowerPC based machines coming before the switch. I think we'll see a new PB before Xmas (a lower power G4) ... but don't expect Intel Inside.

[Randman]

Also, it won't be an Intel PowerBook. It will be an Apple Macintosh PowerBook. Just as it isn't an IBM PowerBook right now.

[runejoha]

Originally Posted by TiDual

Where does this "before xMas" thing come from. Jobs *explicitly* said the first intel-based macs would begin appearing a year from now (now=WWDC). This wasn't just bluffing: Apple has to be honest about this since all developers are planning resources accordingly. There's no way it's all going to happen 6 months earlier than announced. Now, it might be reasonable to say the first machines that change are the high-end (Pmacs + Pbooks) ... but even that is not a given. So the guess of June 06 is, in my view a somewhat optimistic (but realistic) possibility. Wishing for xMas is not going to make it happen.

Furthermore, Jobs stated there would be more PowerPC based machines coming before the switch. I think we'll see a new PB before Xmas (a lower power G4) ... but don't expect Intel Inside.

You cannot beileve in Jobs. He sais that a PB G5 would be released in Q4 2004 to a spanish magazine. Jobs is into marketing, not computers :-)

There are many opinions about why Apple released the switch 1 year before (and loose a lot of money), probably a reason which makes sense after a while.. I don't think they are willing to loose this money beacuse of some developers. The main income for apple are end users with MS office. So why anounce this so early?


Just some thoughs

[runejoha]

Originally Posted by Randman

Also, it won't be an Intel PowerBook. It will be an Apple Macintosh PowerBook. Just as it isn't an IBM PowerBook right now.

It still will be an Intel Powerbook :-) I am sorry, but it WILL be using the x86 architecture and Intel, just like a Dell!!! (and it hurts hehe)

The IBM powerbook never came! Now we wait for the PentiumBook

[analogika]

Originally Posted by TiDual

Where does this "before xMas" thing come from. Jobs *explicitly* said the first intel-based macs would begin appearing a year from now (now=WWDC). This wasn't just bluffing: Apple has to be honest about this since all developers are planning resources accordingly.

Actually, he said they would be "shipping by" a year from now, meaning they *could* appear earlier.

And yes, the reason why Apple had to pre-announce the switch is because the bulk of software available MUST be ready to run the day they ship even the first Intel Mac.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by runejoha

You cannot beileve in Jobs. He sais that a PB G5 would be released in Q4 2004 to a spanish magazine. Jobs is into marketing, not computers :-)

Actually, he said at the quarterly financial results conference call in summer 2003 that they "hoped to" be shipping a G5 'book by the end of 2004.

Originally Posted by runejoha

The main income for apple are end users with MS office.

[Dave Hagan]

Originally Posted by TiDual

Jobs *explicitly* said the first intel-based macs would begin appearing a year from now (now=WWDC).

Steve Jobs didn't say that.

He said:

Now this is not going to be a transition that happens overnight. It's going to happen over a period of a few years. Again, we've got great products right now. And we've got some great PowerPC products in the pipeline yet to be introduced. But starting next year, we will begin to introducing Macs with Intel processors in them, and over time this transition will occur. So when we meet here again this time next year, our plan is to be shipping Macs with Intel processors by then. And when we meet here again two years from now, our plan is that transition will be mostly complete. And we think it will be complete by the end of 2007. So this is a two year transition.

Later on CNBC, Steve Jobs said:

Hopefully when we meet with our developers a year from today, we'll have some Intel-based Macs in the marketplace.

So in summary, Apple hopes to have been *shipping* Intel-based Macs by June of 2006.

[runejoha]

Originally Posted by Dave Hagan

Steve Jobs didn't say that.

He said:


Later on CNBC, Steve Jobs said:


So in summary, Apple hopes to have been *shipping* Intel-based Macs by June of 2006.

Hope, and maybe etc. and so on...

We know that such an announce is uncommon for the it-buissness, saying that todays computers are allready out of date. Several analysis tell us that something is pretty uncommon.

We also know that Apple has to be careful to talk about Intel computer in order to prevent full stop for their PPC computers sales.

Increased competition. Other vedors using Intel gain more and more performance each Watt, while PBs are stuck with yesterdays CPUs.

Knowing this, I doubt we have to wait for one year before we see a PentiumBook.

Jobs' speach opens for Intel Macs before June 2006, btw :-) Lets see

[tooki]

Originally Posted by runejoha

The IBM powerbook never came!

Tell that to all the IBM G3-based PowerBooks like the Lombard and Pismo. (Not to mention all the G3 iBooks.)

tooki

[runejoha]

Originally Posted by tooki

Tell that to all the IBM G3-based PowerBooks like the Lombard and Pismo. (Not to mention all the G3 iBooks.)

tooki

G5 G5 G5!!!

[Agent69]

Considering the Powerbook debuted with 680x0 chips, I don't think Apple really cares what's in them (branding wise, that is).

[runejoha]

Originally Posted by Agent69

Considering the Powerbook debuted with 680x0 chips, I don't think Apple really cares what's in them (branding wise, that is).

Considering the G5, "fastest CPU and personal computer in the world", I disagree! Apple had to much focus on their PPCs without solid scientific benchmarks. Pure marketing, and pathetic if you ask me. Steve Jobs and his bragging is problably the worst part of apple, while their ingeneers do a good job and make products that sell.

[Pierre B.]

Originally Posted by runejoha

Another G4 "update"? I would't bet on it! !!! :-) The G4 line has been out of date for a year at least. But who knows!

Get real guys, the next Powerbook will have the 7448 chip in it. Freescale already began showcasing this chip some days ago, with a production date of October of this year (in schedule according to their last year roadmap). Here are the chip specifications. Of note is the FSB at 200 MHz and the 1 MB L2 cache. From those two alone this chip will offer a nice performance boost to the Powerbook line which should not come later than this November/December.

Originally Posted by runejoha

Apples early statement for switching CPUs could mean that they allready have serious update plans for the PBs before 2006. Considering it is ON TIME, it wouldn't suprise me.

Great, and what software do you run on the new processors? No, Apple would not move to Intel before it makes sure that the software side is safe (that is, before taking as much developers as they can on board to convert their software). I would be VERY surprised if the first Intel-Mac came much sooner than the projected June 2006 time frame.

Originally Posted by runejoha

But again, we do not know before the day it is released :-) (but not later than leopard and long horn next year)

How do you/we know this? I think the target is not Leopard but the hurting Powerbook performance. Expect the Powerbook to be one of the first Macintosh lines to move to Intel processors. The Power Mac will be one of the last (after the Xserve) if not the last, well into 2007.

[runejoha]

Originally Posted by Pierre B.

Get real guys, the next Powerbook will have the 7448 chip in it. Freescale already began showcasing this chip some days ago, with a production date of October of this year (in schedule according to their last year roadmap). Here are the chip specifications. Of note is the FSB at 200 MHz and the 1 MB L2 cache. From those two alone this chip will offer a nice performance boost to the Powerbook line which should not come later than this November/December.


Great, and what software do you run on the new processors? No, Apple would not move to Intel before it makes sure that the software side is safe (that is, before taking as much developers as they can on board to convert their software). I would be VERY surprised if the first Intel-Mac came much sooner than the projected June 2006 time frame.



How do you/we know this? I think the target is not Leopard but the hurting Powerbook performance. Expect the Powerbook to be one of the first Macintosh lines to move to Intel processors. The Power Mac will be one of the last (after the Xserve) if not the last, well into 2007.

Yes, Pierre you have some very good points, and it is difficult to disagree. But when several people known in the it world talk about the very early Intel news release, which for sure results in lower income, everybody points out that something is strange. The OS itself should be easy to port to the x86, and several apps ad well.

Another point is that common people cannot start to port to the x86 plattform anyway, so the turn over can only happen the "hard way" no mather what.

We can't trust apple either, because they say there will be other ppc releases "in the future" but in 2 years there wil be only Intel. This is the same as "There is a long wait until Intel Macs, so buy PPC now but be prepared to buy another one at latest 2 years..." A total turn over in 1 year is neither realistic.

I am just think that something is not as obvious as Apple says.

The reason I mentioned Leopard is that it is probably optimized for x86 and a closer competitor to Long Horn, more than OS X today, and they probably have have som x86 HW ready by then. (I have worked with optimizing code on C and Assebly level, I would be suprised if it is possible to optimize OS X to both plattforms, or even applications running on the different plattform, but i may be wrong...)

[Pierre B.]

Originally Posted by runejoha

We can't trust apple either, because they say there will be other ppc releases "in the future" but in 2 years there wil be only Intel. This is the same as "There is a long wait until Intel Macs, so buy PPC now but be prepared to buy another one at latest 2 years..." A total turn over in 1 year is neither realistic.

Well, yes, I think Apple should not be trusted anymore. Not because of the switch (it is not the first time and not necessarily a bad thing), but because of the way this happens (big promises on G5 release two years ago, architecture that "has legs" etc, and then OS X had a secret life on x86 from the beginning). I repeat, it is not bad to have the OS already running in another CPU architecture, but it is this disgusting mix of marketing, engineering and Apple's secrecy that gives me a bad impression. Even so, I believe that it is quite safe to buy now and next year a PowerPC Macintosh, because Apple and the rest of the developer community are going to support PowerPC for at least 5 years from now. How do I get this figure? Let's say that the transition goes well, so it is finished the end of 2007 as scheduled (2.5 years from now). I would give it at least 2.5-3 years after that for the Intel-based Macs to reach a critical mass making PowerPC support not compulsory. This leads us to at least 5 years from now with software support for the PowerPC architecture.

Originally Posted by runejoha

The reason I mentioned Leopard is that it is probably optimized for x86 and a closer competitor to Long Horn, more than OS X today, and they probably have have som x86 HW ready by then. (I have worked with optimizing code on C and Assebly level, I would be suprised if it is possible to optimize OS X to both plattforms, or even applications running on the different plattform, but i may be wrong...)

I think it is perfectly possible to have a universal installer that will install the appropriate optimized binaries, according to the hardware it detects. Anyway, this transition is going to be painful (loss of Altivec + code conversion) and mostly dangerous. After that, Apple perhaps will not be what we know today.

[runejoha]

Originally Posted by Pierre B.

Even so, I believe that it is quite safe to buy now and next year a PowerPC Macintosh, because Apple and the rest of the developer community are going to support PowerPC for at least 5 years from now. How do I get this figure? Let's say that the transition goes well, so it is finished the end of 2007 as scheduled (2.5 years from now). I would give it at least 2.5-3 years after that for the Intel-based Macs to reach a critical mass making PowerPC support not compulsory. This leads us to at least 5 years from now with software support for the PowerPC architecture.


I think it is perfectly possible to have a universal installer that will install the appropriate optimized binaries, according to the hardware it detects. Anyway, this transition is going to be painful (loss of Altivec + code conversion) and mostly dangerous. After that, Apple perhaps will not be what we know today.

Yes, the PPC architecture support will be around for a while, I agree, but I was thinking about the cusomers that always want to be up to dated and not using "old" HW. There are many of those :-)

Yes, two different binaries should work, but what if optimization has to be done on different SW layers? Should Adobe, OS X, games etc. also have n different binaries? Honestly, I believe PPC programs will run on the Intel architecture but will soon be outdated. Personally, I will be using Panther on the PB 15 until a PentiumBook comes with Leopard :-)

The predicted turn over time of 1 year is not realistic. I think this is one of Jobs several unrealistic predictions. It will last longer or start earlier.

[NeXTLoop]

Originally Posted by Pierre B.

Well, yes, I think Apple should not be trusted anymore...

While I'm not advicating "trust" in any coporation, I believe that your reasons for feeling betrayed by Apple my be a little misdirected. Remember it was IBM that dropped the ball in failing to provide Apple with the chips they needed. About a year ago, IBM was forced to admit that they were having trouble keeping up with demands due to manufacturing problems, and that was for the desktop chips they supposedly don't have any issues making. Despite IBM's recent claims that they could have made a mobile G5 chip, there's really no reason to believe that it's not just an effort to save face. Two years after debuting thte G5, there's still no mobile version, primarily because of heat considerations. Has any real progress been made? When one considers that the G5's in the PowerMacs have went from air-cooled to liquid-cooled due to increasing heat output.... well, you get the picture.

No doubt Apple was hoping that IBM would get their act together, making this move unnecessary. But in the event IBM didn't, Apple, like any company, needed to make sure they had a good backup plan. As upset as some customers are over this, imagine how much more upset we'd be if two years down the road, we still didn't have a G5 PB, and the PowerMacs were maxed out at 3.5Ghz. While it's definitely dissappointing that we didn't have notice about this sooner, and that Apple has continued touting the PPC, its really understandable when you consider that this was really an "oh hell" scenario they were hoping would never occur.

Although I'm a big fan of the PPC architecture, I personally am glad that Apple didn't put all their eggs in one basket. They, and by extension we the customers, have been burned by that too many times in the past. At least Apple is learning from their mistakes and thinking long-term... for their sake and ours.