Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

Severed Hand of Skywalker · May 16, 2006, 04:28 PM

Ok, we know there are some Intel haters out there. Lets skip the negatives for a second and look at what we got.

Since the MBP's came out 5 months ago the speed has already been bumped 3 times!

THREE TIMES in FIVE MONTHS!

When was the last time we saw something like that from Motorola or IBM? We were lucky to get speedbumps every 10 months.

Chuckit · May 16, 2006, 04:33 PM

Of course, no bumps at all since the iMac came out.

Dakar · May 16, 2006, 04:37 PM

Originally Posted by Chuckit

Of course, no bumps at all since the iMac came out.

No, they need to build as much difference as they can between them and the future MacTowers.

Severed Hand of Skywalker · May 16, 2006, 04:39 PM

Originally Posted by Chuckit

Of course, no bumps at all since the iMac came out.

Remember they are a mid range consumer product. The goodies to go the Pro customers.

Salty · May 16, 2006, 06:17 PM

Yah that way the pros can see their machines lose value quicker

. Seriously though they've jumped from 1.8 and 2, to 2 and 2.16. That's really only one speed bump. Yes they did get released at higher than we were expecting but that's not a real bump. But yes the fact that they got a small bump and then in August will be moving to an even faster set up chips is a very good thing

.

Kerrigan · May 16, 2006, 06:23 PM

Not to mention, Apple hasn't had any buzz around its portables since the TiBook. Now they're back on the right track.

TETENAL · May 16, 2006, 06:32 PM

[FONT="Impact"]Thank you Intel![/FONT]

Salty · May 16, 2006, 06:38 PM

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

Not to mention, Apple hasn't had any buzz around its portables since the TiBook. Now they're back on the right track.

I dono I thought Apple's had a fair bit of buzz around their laptops for a while.

Kerrigan · May 16, 2006, 06:41 PM

Ya, but only in the Mac crowd. Do you think many PC users noticed when the iBook went G4, or when the Powerbook got a redesign and a mild speedbump?

Salty · May 16, 2006, 06:49 PM

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

Ya, but only in the Mac crowd. Do you think many PC users noticed when the iBook went G4, or when the Powerbook got a redesign and a mild speedbump?

True... but the iBooks and PowerBooks haven't been revamped notably in like... a LONG time...

Kerrigan · May 16, 2006, 06:53 PM

That's the point! Intel has given Apple the impetus and ability start being more competitive in the notebook world.

Salty · May 16, 2006, 06:56 PM

I dono I think in many ways Apple just gets a super awesome sexy design and sits on it for a long while. I hope with the same options that everyone else has for hardware Apple can innovate a bit more.

goMac · May 16, 2006, 06:59 PM

Yay for speedy Intel Macs

The G5 was speedy in it's own right, but it would never have made it to the portables.

Salty · May 16, 2006, 07:09 PM

Not without them becoming freaking huge.

andreas_g4 · May 16, 2006, 08:12 PM

^^^

SHoK: That was exactly what I was thinking. Pathetic bumps like those from Moto/Freescale hopefully are a thing of the past now.

Millennium · May 16, 2006, 08:51 PM

Prices have gone up, and I can still build a better machine. I'm not impressed by marketing numbers going up.

Dark Helmet · May 16, 2006, 09:04 PM

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

Apple hasn't had any buzz around its portables since the TiBook

I hear it sounds more like a whine

Kerrigan · May 16, 2006, 09:19 PM

I hear lots of whining coming from my MBP ... or maybe that's GoMac

Eug Wanker · May 16, 2006, 10:54 PM

Yes. I am very impressed that my lowly iBook... err... MacBook... will be TWICE as fast as my 1 year old G5 iMac.

I'm not going to upgrade the iMac until 10.5 is out though, when there is a Conroe iMac with Blu-ray/HD DVD and HDCP support.

Cody Dawg · May 16, 2006, 11:16 PM

I'm not impressed.

And a lot of you saying, "It's SO much faster" are forgetting that it's only for certain apps.

Certain things are not faster because they're native to the previous chip. (Like MS Office for example which actually runs slower on the Intel Macs right now.)

Eug Wanker · May 16, 2006, 11:24 PM

Originally Posted by Cody Dawg

I'm not impressed.

And a lot of you saying, "It's SO much faster" are forgetting that it's only for certain apps.

Certain things are not faster because they're native to the previous chip. (Like MS Office for example which actually runs slower on the Intel Macs right now.)

Yeah, but Office is not speed limited for most usage. For example, I tried Word on an Intel iMac, and although it was not blazing fast, it was fast enough to keep up with my typing no problem.

Photoshop can be problematic on an Intel Mac if you used to fast PowerPC machines, but the key here is that a lot of people going to say a MacBook are coming from an iBook, myself included. The iBook was slow in Photoshop to begin with, so going to a CPU with 3X the GHz but with Rosetta emulation isn't going to hurt that much if at all.

OTOH, H.264 video encoding takes just about forever on my 2.0 GHz G5 iMac, and almost twice as long on my iBook.

I haven't tested Intel Macs yet, but from what I'm reading, it should be close to twice as fast on a Core Duo 2.0 than my iMac. That suggests that a conservative estimate is that a Core Duo 2.0 might be over 3X as fast as my iBook. This is where speed really matters for me, since encoding a single video can sometimes take half a day. So the CPU upgrade can mean reducing each encode time by several hours.

And just think... In one year when more of the big apps like Office and Photoshop go native... it'd almost be like a free CPU upgrade for those apps.

goMac · May 16, 2006, 11:26 PM

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

I hear lots of whining coming from my MBP ... or maybe that's GoMac

I love Intel chips, and I'm definitely in support of the transition. I was coding Intel targeted stuff before the first Intel Macs were out.

I'm just not going to be throw out the baby with the bath water. The GMA950 sucks. Very badly. There is no better way to put it. The GMA950 is not fit for a Mac over $1000.

Big Mac · May 17, 2006, 03:08 AM

Originally Posted by Cody Dawg

I'm not impressed.

And a lot of you saying, "It's SO much faster" are forgetting that it's only for certain apps.

Careful, too many posts like that and you'll be labeled a troll by some.

This transition is at best a necessary evil for our platform. I truly hope Jobs did not make the decision to defect on a mercurial whim. Now Mac sales are lagging, and we have midrange laptops with GMA. That's apparently perfectly acceptable in the PC world, but Apple previously had higher standards. Even goMac, who never has a negative thing to say about Intel, is harshly critical of this cheapness.

angelmb · May 17, 2006, 03:21 AM

It is great than these new chips available inside Apple lowest models beat the -by then- fastest computer in the world… I don't think we can complain about it.

He was even able to make fun from the old Apple - intel ads, he did the intel CPU to look beautiful side by side with the PowerPC CPU… meh, the guy is pure genious…

Yeah, keep moving, I like changes.

Big Mac · May 17, 2006, 03:38 AM

It looks like you're easily influenced by style and slickness over substance.

Chuckit · May 17, 2006, 03:54 AM

Edit: Doh, wrong thread. Sorry, y'all.

Obi Wan's Ghost · May 17, 2006, 05:06 AM

Speed bumps will happen all the time if Apple wants to keep up with Dell who bump every month.

TETENAL · May 17, 2006, 06:25 AM

Originally Posted by Millennium

Prices have gone up, and I can still build a better machine. I'm not impressed by marketing numbers going up.

Where can you get a better notebook than the new MacBook for < $1100. Provide a link!

voodoo · May 17, 2006, 07:56 AM

Praise Intel? Mmmmnnnah. I don't think so. The crappy graphics chips they provide are reason enough to forget such nonsense.

V

Dark Helmet · May 17, 2006, 08:20 AM

Originally Posted by voodoo

Praise Intel? Mmmmnnnah. I don't think so. The crappy graphics chips they provide are reason enough to forget such nonsense.

V

So because it is in low end systems you also have to ignore the iMac and MBP's?

Nice.

Person Man · May 17, 2006, 08:22 AM

Originally Posted by Big Mac

Now Mac sales are lagging...

They are lagging because of the transition. Don't worry about Mac sales until the entire lineup has switched and the big apps (read: MS Office and Photoshop) are Intel native.

Then you can b*tch about low sales.

voodoo · May 17, 2006, 08:25 AM

Originally Posted by Dark Helmet

So because it is in low end systems you also have to ignore the iMac and MBP's?

Nice.

Yeah, though innit? Graphics suck enough already on Mac OS compared to Windows and putting the Intel graphics in the low-end is addng insult to injury.

Not to mention we're used to better. I am for one. The Airport reception and durability of the MBPs is far inferior to MBs/iBooks. Therefore those are not low-end systems for those who need a true portable machine, they are the only choice.

V

adster · May 17, 2006, 09:04 AM

I don't mind the Intel transition as much as the quality issues that keep popping up (mostly surrounding the MBP).

I'm thinking of selling my dual-core G5 for a MBP, but not while so many people report quite a number of build issues.

Severed Hand of Skywalker · May 17, 2006, 09:12 AM

Originally Posted by funk ride

I don't mind the Intel transition as much as the quality issues that keep popping up (mostly surrounding the MBP).

I'm thinking of selling my dual-core G5 for a MBP, but not while so many people report quite a number of build issues.

The build quality is Apples fault. They rushed the MBP to market. The proof is they didn't even have battery tests available when they announced it.

The iMac and Mini don't have such bad quality issues even though they are based on Intel.

adster · May 17, 2006, 09:20 AM

Originally Posted by Severed Hand of Skywalker

The build quality is Apples fault. They rushed the MBP to market. The proof is they didn't even have battery tests available when they announced it.

Yeah, I think so. I need a laptop before July (travelling), but I don't think there will be any major revision of the MBP until late this year, but I'm loathe to fork out cash for a machine that might be a screw-up on delivery.

I might end up just getting one of the last generations of 15" Powerbooks, not ideal, but...

TailsToo · May 17, 2006, 09:26 AM

I'm keeping my PB 15" for at least another year - I'd like more than just a CPU upgrade (like faster wireless integration) before I replace my PowerBook.

Cody Dawg · May 17, 2006, 09:59 AM

I'm keeping my PB 15" for as long as possible also. I have it connected to a new 23" display and it's running great.

I thought about buying the new 15" Intel version but put the money towards the display instead and I don't regret it for a minute.

Chuckit · May 17, 2006, 10:11 AM

Originally Posted by voodoo

Not to mention we're used to better. I am for one. The Airport reception and durability of the MBPs is far inferior to MBs/iBooks. Therefore those are not low-end systems for those who need a true portable machine, they are the only choice.

Wasn't that just as true of the PowerBook?

goMac · May 17, 2006, 10:20 AM

Originally Posted by Chuckit

Wasn't that just as true of the PowerBook?

Yeah, when I moved from my TiBook to my AlBook it got better actually.

I wouldn't mind them building the next MBP out of plastic actually. At least it won't dent and the Airport range will be better.

Chuckit · May 17, 2006, 10:34 AM

I was just checking that the MBP wasn't a lot worse than the PowerBook or anything. I've been using my PowerBook for over a year and I've never had a problem getting an Airport signal where I was supposed to.

goMac · May 17, 2006, 10:37 AM

Originally Posted by Chuckit

I was just checking that the MBP wasn't a lot worse than the PowerBook or anything. I've been using my PowerBook for over a year and I've never had a problem getting an Airport signal where I was supposed to.

The iBook is notably better than any aluminum clad Apple notebook.

Eug Wanker · May 17, 2006, 10:37 AM

Originally Posted by Cody Dawg

I'm keeping my PB 15" for as long as possible also. I have it connected to a new 23" display and it's running great.

I thought about buying the new 15" Intel version but put the money towards the display instead and I don't regret it for a minute.

A very reasonable choice (esp. if you use a lot of PowerPC apps).

Originally Posted by TailsToo

I'm keeping my PB 15" for at least another year - I'd like more than just a CPU upgrade (like faster wireless integration) before I replace my PowerBook.

Also a very reasonable choice.

I look forward to when 802.11n and Blu-ray/HD DVD are standard in laptops. Perhaps that is when I will upgrade from the MacBook I just orderd.

TETENAL · May 17, 2006, 10:56 AM

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

A very reasonable choice.

No. I'm getting a MacBook in June, because it is exactly what I need for a reasonable price. I sure wouldn't mind a better graphics card, but I don't need the notebook for gaming at all, so this is absolutely no deal breaker for me.

Eug Wanker · May 17, 2006, 10:59 AM

Originally Posted by TETENAL

No. I'm getting a MacBook in June, because it is exactly what I need for a reasonable price. I sure wouldn't mind a better graphics card, but I don't need the notebook for gaming at all, so this is absolutely no deal breaker for me.

So? That's a reasonable choice too.

There's nothing wrong with those guys/gals wanting to wait. I personally am getting a MacBook now too, but it makes sense for others to put money instead into a display upgrade, or wait for faster wireless, especially in this period of application transition.

CharlesS · May 17, 2006, 11:07 AM

Originally Posted by TETENAL

No. I'm getting a MacBook in June, because it is exactly what I need for a reasonable price. I sure wouldn't mind a better graphics card, but I don't need the notebook for gaming at all, so this is absolutely no deal breaker for me.

Other than the crap graphics (and the completely insufficient RAM), the MacBook looks great.

Of course, when 10.6 comes out and it doesn't work on the MacBook because of the integrated graphics, then it won't look so great anymore...

olePigeon · May 17, 2006, 11:24 AM

The Intel motherboards are still ugly as sin, though. All those exposed capaciters. No gold leads. No symmetry. Yeah, yeah, I'm a sucker for art. I thought the G5 motherboard was one of the best designed motherboards out there. Looked awesome.

I really hope Apple still has some control over that. I wanna 'nother G5 like motherboard and not something that looks like it came outta Acer's orifice.

G5 mobo vs Intel mobo. Gonna miss it.

TETENAL · May 17, 2006, 11:29 AM

Originally Posted by CharlesS

Of course, when 10.6 comes out and it doesn't work on the MacBook because of the integrated graphics, then it won't look so great anymore...

10.6 is at least 3 years away.

Eug Wanker · May 17, 2006, 11:30 AM

Originally Posted by CharlesS

Other than the crap graphics (and the completely insufficient RAM), the MacBook looks great.

Of course, when 10.6 comes out and it doesn't work on the MacBook because of the integrated graphics, then it won't look so great anymore...

Why do you think 10.6 won't work on the MacBook? Mind you, it won't be out until 2009. By that time I will have upgraded anyway.

CharlesS · May 17, 2006, 11:34 AM

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

Why do you think 10.6 won't work on the MacBook?

Apple keeps adding graphical features to the OS, and the graphics card keeps ending up being a cut-off for those features. Also, I'm a cynical bastard.

What I'm saying is that these machines are not going to be very future-proof. Even if they work with future OS versions, they won't be as usable as something with an actual graphics card.

It's frustrating because with that $150 premium for absolutely nothing on the black one, they could have afforded a graphics card in at least that model. I'm sure that Apple can get something from ATI for under $150 - it doesn't have to be high-end...

Mind you, it won't be out until 2009. By that time I will have upgraded anyway.

Good for you. Just because you are rich, however, does not mean that everyone is.

This statement also applies to anyone who replies with "So just get the MBP for twice as much, even though the screen is too damn big and it has a bunch of other features you don't need."

TETENAL · May 17, 2006, 11:40 AM

CharlesS, most people who hold on to their computer for ages are people who never upgrade their OS or software anyway.