[The Ancient One]

Appleinsider says so:

http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=1368

So, should I wait for it or buy the G5 20" iMac next week?

I expect I'll be buying the G5 for a couple of reasons:

No software support (except for Rosetta).
No games (ever try to play games on an emulator?)
Never buy version 1.0 of ANYTHING

What's your take?

[Pierre B.]

It doesn't make sense to me. By January, there will be very little to no native software for such a machine (well, apart OS X and some Apple software). If I was in the market for a new iMac, I would buy the G5 one, no question, just for software alone.

[Goldfinger]

Well if you don't really need a new machine now I would wait till MWSF if I were you. It's only 2 months away.

[The Ancient One]

Originally Posted by Goldfinger

Well if you don't really need a new machine now I would wait till MWSF if I were you. It's only 2 months away.

Trouble is, I DO need a new machine now.

[Drakino]

Then buy it now. The iMacs were just improved, with tangable upgrades to the processor and video systems. If your evaluations of the existing system meet your needs, then go for it.

A new iMac in January seems doubtful. Just ignore the rumor sites for now, as they are constantly wrong, and only occasionally right. Usually they are right only when the product is a day or two away.

[mduell]

I think all the G4 products will switch before any of the G5 products do.

I think Apple will have all their software running natively when the associated hardware is released. In other words, when the iBook or Mac mini is released, all of Apples consumer software will be native. Some other companies like Wolfram will be early to switch, and most of the big ones (Adobe, Microsoft, etc) will be ready within the first year.

Games in an emulator may not be so bad, espically if you're coming from an older Mac. Microsoft has the Xbox 360 ready to play 200+ Xbox games, despite a major hardware change, so it certainly is possible to provide suitable emulation for games. Also 99% of games already have optimized x86 back-end code from their Windows versions, so porting should be quick.

[moonmonkey]

Originally Posted by mduell

Games in an emulator may not be so bad, espically if you're coming from an older Mac. Microsoft has the Xbox 360 ready to play 200+ Xbox games, despite a major hardware change, so it certainly is possible to provide suitable emulation for games.

We are going the other way, PPC to Intel, this is not an emulation area that anyone has spent a great deal of time working on.

[mathew_m]

The iMac makes perfect sense to be the first intel based Mac. It's their high profile consumer machine. The Powerbook would be next I would think because it needs the speed. The Powermac will probably be last because of the installed user base needs reliability and stability.

[Pierre B.]

Originally Posted by mathew_m

The iMac makes perfect sense to be the first intel based Mac. It's their high profile consumer machine.

It does not make sense to switch a G5 machine now. Intel has not yet consumer level 64-bit CPUs and using a 32-bit one, would be a step back. Now you can say, who actually needs 64-bit CPUs, but such a "downgrade" would certainly have a negative marketing impact. The Powerbook is another story and a much better candidate for getting an Intel processor early next year (see also its last update).

[chme6583]

Originally Posted by The Ancient One

Trouble is, I DO need a new machine now.

Why are you even asking then? If you need it now just buy the best machine for the money or the machine you want. I personally would not buy until after January; but if you need it now, you need it now.

Those G5 iMacs are great machines, you will not regret purchasing one.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by Pierre B.

It does not make sense to switch a G5 machine now. Intel has not yet consumer level 64-bit CPUs and using a 32-bit one, would be a step back. Now you can say, who actually needs 64-bit CPUs, but such a "downgrade" would certainly have a negative marketing impact. The Powerbook is another story and a much better candidate for getting an Intel processor early next year (see also its last update).

Since the iMac doesn't support >4GB RAM anyway, what would the consumer lose by "downgrading" to a 32-bit chip?
Intel has a whole line of consumer-targeted P4s with E64MT (the 5x1 and 6x0 series).

[Pierre B.]

Originally Posted by mduell

Since the iMac doesn't support >4GB RAM anyway, what would the consumer lose by "downgrading" to a 32-bit chip?

64-bit arithmetic. As I said, it does not matter to 99% of consumers, but it will have a negative marketing impact.

Intel has a whole line of consumer-targeted P4s with E64MT (the 5x1 and 6x0 series).

No question to put in the iMac enclosure a P4. It will melt down. The next iMac chip (from Intel) should be some 64-bit P-M variant.

[andgarden]

"No question to put in the iMac enclosure a P4. It will melt down. The next iMac chip (from Intel) should be some 64-bit P-M variant."

I just wonder about this. The G5 is supposed to run pretty hot too. No one claims that the P4 is a perfect chip, but given that it does do AMD64 at consumer prices, is there any physical reason why Apple couldn't shove it into the current iMac enclosure?

[mduell]

Originally Posted by andgarden

"No question to put in the iMac enclosure a P4. It will melt down. The next iMac chip (from Intel) should be some 64-bit P-M variant."

I just wonder about this. The G5 is supposed to run pretty hot too. No one claims that the P4 is a perfect chip, but given that it does do AMD64 at consumer prices, is there any physical reason why Apple couldn't shove it into the current iMac enclosure?

Heat.
With the current crop of ~55W parts people are complaining about the fan noise. Do you really want to shove a ~110W CPU in there?

[andgarden]

Well, Dell can get the P4 into the following: http://reviews-zdnet.com.com/Dell_Op...-31420314.html .

[Pierre B.]

Originally Posted by andgarden

Well, Dell can get the P4 into the following: http://reviews-zdnet.com.com/Dell_Op...-31420314.html .

It does not even comes close. It has a separate, from the screen, voluminous compartment to house the computer components. This is very important: computer and screen are separate. And who will tell us how is noise in this machine during actual use?

The iMac has display and computer put together. And this third generation seems to be really nice. As of now, the G5 is much more power efficient than the P4.

[andgarden]

Point taken.

[andgarden]

dup. post

[andgarden]

dup. post

[m4rtin]

'Kin annoying rumour that one.
I just ordered a new iMac but am hoping the Intel iMac rev a comes out in 2007 just to make me feel better.


"WWDC 2005, SAN FRANCISCO—June 6, 2005—At its Worldwide Developer Conference today, Apple® announced plans to deliver models of its Macintosh® computers using Intel® microprocessors by this time next year, and to transition all of its Macs to using Intel microprocessors by the end of 2007."

[Eriamjh]

Latest rumor is new iBooks in January and that the entire transition will be done by the end of 2006.

Since I don't think I want the last PPC or the first Intel, I think I'm hanging onto my DP800. Might even upgrade it.

[volcano]

I doubt the transition will be finished in 2006. Have you not seen the keynote that discussed this? Jobs explicitly stated that the transition would not be complete until 2007.

[CaptainHaddock]

My guess is that the laptops will be the first Intel machines, and Jobs wants them to make a big impact in the market. If I could be allowed to play the predictions game for a moment, when the Intel Macs are announced, there will be dual iBook / Powerbook announcements. I think the recent Powerbook revisions without a processor speed boost were a stop-gap release in preparation for a new line-up.

My guess for the January event is:

1. Two new price-reduced iBook models with the dual-core Yonah running at impressive clock speeds. (say, 1.4 GHz) If they do it right, Apple could sell several million of these in 2006. Maybe they'll even have built-in iSight.

2. Two mid-range Powerbook models with the dual-core Yonah ranging from 1.4 to 2.0 GHz. Faster buses, faster hard disks, better screens, and beefier video cards will help justify the cost difference from the iBooks.

3. A high-end Powerbook with two dual-core Yonahs. This machine will be designed for pro applications like Aperture. Yes, a Quad Powerbook! One can hope, anyway.

[PBG4 User]

CaptianHaddock,

I think only single core Yonahs will make it into iBooks. The dual cores will be reserved for the PowerBook line. That will be the differentiator.

[Simon]

Originally Posted by PBG4 User

I think only single core Yonahs will make it into iBooks. The dual cores will be reserved for the PowerBook line. That will be the differentiator.

Likely.

Problem is, Intel is expected to deliver the dual-core version by January. The single core will ship roughly two months later. And we all know how badly Apple wants to be first...

[CaptainHaddock]

Originally Posted by PBG4 User

CaptianHaddock,

I think only single core Yonahs will make it into iBooks. The dual cores will be reserved for the PowerBook line. That will be the differentiator.

As noted, single core Yonahs will come out later. And why put something in the iBook that quite possibly will be wimpier than a G4? They really need something twice as fast to make up for the emulation slowdown.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by volcano

I doubt the transition will be finished in 2006. Have you not seen the keynote that discussed this? Jobs explicitly stated that the transition would not be complete until 2007.

If I recall correctly, SJobs said the transition would be complete before the end of 2007. December 2006 is before the end of 2007.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaddock

1. Two new price-reduced iBook models with the dual-core Yonah running at impressive clock speeds. (say, 1.4 GHz) If they do it right, Apple could sell several million of these in 2006. Maybe they'll even have built-in iSight.

2. Two mid-range Powerbook models with the dual-core Yonah ranging from 1.4 to 2.0 GHz. Faster buses, faster hard disks, better screens, and beefier video cards will help justify the cost difference from the iBooks.

3. A high-end Powerbook with two dual-core Yonahs. This machine will be designed for pro applications like Aperture. Yes, a Quad Powerbook! One can hope, anyway.

I can't see iBooks going dual any time soon; I think they'll go with Dothans for launch and shortly after switch to Jonah/Yonah.
PowerBooks will go dualcore but not quad (as far as I know the chipset doesn't support two CPUs).

Originally Posted by CaptainHaddock

As noted, single core Yonahs will come out later. And why put something in the iBook that quite possibly will be wimpier than a G4? They really need something twice as fast to make up for the emulation slowdown.

Wimpier than a G4 only for emulation... all the Apple software and much of the third party software should be running native.

[P]

Originally Posted by mduell

If I recall correctly, SJobs said the transition would be complete before the end of 2007. December 2006 is before the end of 2007.

I think he said that the transition would be "mostly complete" by WWDC 2007 - usually taken to mean everything but the xServe on Intel by then. It probably takes something really powerful to bump the dualcore G5 from the Powermac, since cooling isn't an issue on that model. The first of the Conroe generation might be a little on the slow side before Intel gets its feet underneath itself again, depending on how different the core is - that's what happend with the P4 and the PPro, the two last major core revisions from Intel.

[CaptainHaddock]

mduell, do you really think a single-core 1.4GHz Yonah is going to be much better than what the iBooks currently have? You may well be right, but I have trouble seeing Apple actually waiting a few months so they can make a crappier iBook when there shouldn't be much price difference to use the dual-cores now.

A quad Powerbook is more of a hope rather than a prediction, but Intel does have a Yonah variant designed for dual-processor configurations. [reference: ZDnet]

[mduell]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaddock

mduell, do you really think a single-core 1.4GHz Yonah is going to be much better than what the iBooks currently have? You may well be right, but I have trouble seeing Apple actually waiting a few months so they can make a crappier iBook when there shouldn't be much price difference to use the dual-cores now.

A quad Powerbook is more of a hope rather than a prediction, but Intel does have a Yonah variant designed for dual-processor configurations. [reference: ZDnet]

I really can't see Apple putting a dual core Jonah/Yonah in the iBooks while the "Power"Books have single core G4s.

Even the old Banias chips could beat the G4 at the same clockrate:

Dothan/Yonah are even better at the same clockrate.

[CaptainHaddock]

Originally Posted by mduell

I really can't see Apple putting a dual core Jonah/Yonah in the iBooks while the "Power"Books have single core G4s.

I agree with that statement fully, which is why I'm thinking there'll be Intel iBooks and Powerbooks at the same time. That's why I think the recent Powerbook "revision", which didn't even touch the CPU, was just a short-term stop-gap.

I suspect Steve Jobs is just as tired of the "cripple the iBook" game as we are. I hope he doesn't prove me wrong.

[Peter Bonte]

Intel as a BTO option would be awesome, the cheap intel or 200$ extra for the G5. it would satisfy everybody. I'm buying a G5 iMac this year cos the transition is going to take at least 2 years.

Intel iMacs are going to sell really good to people who want to run Windozs on it and even better if Windows is run in a closed environment inside osX, just as classic support now. If we can run windows apps inside osX without the usual problems and viruses i will hit myself on the head a few times for buying a G5 iMac but i don't think even Apple can pull this one off.

Its going to be like this, a Windows user on a Mactel or "made for osX" DELL clone lost all his stuff whit a crash or virus. The fastest way to be up 'n running again is to use osX and then there hooked. osX must be marketed as an upgrade for Windows users and not as an upgrade for the current Mac owners. Think about that!

[CaptainHaddock]

Originally Posted by Peter Bonte

Intel iMacs are going to sell really good to people who want to run Windozs on it and even better if Windows is run in a closed environment inside osX

Somehow, I don't think the tiny niche of people willing to shell out an extra $500 for VirtualPC plus Winblows really factors into Apple's plans. People should realize that running Windows on OS X won't be easy for the consumer, and Windows is not designed to co-exist with other OSes.

95% of people buying Intel Macs will buy them for the same reason they bought PPC Macs: because they're Macs.

[Peter Bonte]

Back when we talked about Rhapsody instead of osX the blue box was for os9 compatibility (classic) and red box for Windows compatibility on Intel.
http://www.lowendmac.com/musings/boxes.shtml

At worst we can run Windows natively just fine (format-c and install like on any old clone), at best we get a classic like environment to run Windows inside osX. A lot off people are going to buy a Mac just to run Windows and thats it, osX is a bonus just as Linux is a bonus to them.

[CaptainHaddock]

Originally Posted by Peter Bonte

Back when we talked about Rhapsody instead of osX the blue box was for os9 compatibility (classic) and red box for Windows compatibility on Intel.

A terrible idea that could never have been implemented. Do you have any idea how much work it would be for Apple to reverse engineer and implement every Windows API in use? Millions of man hours, I would think. Steve Jobs has 100 better ideas to focus Apple's resources on.

At worst we can run Windows natively just fine (format-c and install like on any old clone)

I think the "worst" and most likely case is that the Mac's firmware and other differences from generic hardware will require serious technical expertise to get Windows running. The "best" case is that people can wipe OS X and install Windows (a tedious task involving missing drivers, rapid virus infections, and so on), but those people would just go buy a $400 Dell computer anyway.

Not meaning to be purposely contrary here, but I think people have some funny ideas about Intel CPUs turning the Mac into a magical generic PC where everyone can run Windows easily.

[Peter Bonte]

What are you talking about? This red box Windows compatibility was an official statement at the time and steve even explained it in a speech if my memory serves me right. Windows installs just fine on the developer machine. The hardware is compatible with Windows from the start, players, motherboards and graphic cards.

Think about it, having a Windows compatible computer would open up the distribution channel (practically all off them because they can sell it as a Windows compatible clone) and don't forget big school, army and government deals who also need this. Good Windows compatibility is essential to make the big breaktrue Steve is aiming at.

[P]

The Red box was a rumor back in the days when Apple was talking about boxes, in the same vein as calling the Java VM "Green box" - people thought just Yellow box and Blue box weren't enough.

Steve never confirmed Windows compability. Someone else, Schiller I think, just said that they weren't going to make it harder on people trying to do that and that it probably would work.

[Pierre B.]

Originally Posted by Peter Bonte

Good Windows compatibility is essential to make the big breaktrue Steve is aiming at.

Like destroying development of OS X software?

[mduell]

Originally Posted by Peter Bonte

IIntel iMacs are going to sell really good to people who want to run Windozs on it and even better if Windows is run in a closed environment inside osX, just as classic support now. If we can run windows apps inside osX without the usual problems and viruses i will hit myself on the head a few times for buying a G5 iMac but i don't think even Apple can pull this one off.

The best, and in my opinion most likely, way to run Windows and OSX on a Intel Mac is Vanderpool (VT). Apple has hinted toward it in one of their recent patent applications (20050246554). Better than Virtual PC, better than WINE, and better than Classic emulation.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaddock

Somehow, I don't think the tiny niche of people willing to shell out an extra $500 for VirtualPC plus Winblows really factors into Apple's plans. People should realize that running Windows on OS X won't be easy for the consumer, and Windows is not designed to co-exist with other OSes.

Windows co-exists with other OSs just fine. I run Windows on Linux or Linux on Windows and I can have both OSs installed on the same disk.

Originally Posted by Peter Bonte

At worst we can run Windows natively just fine (format-c and install like on any old clone), at best we get a classic like environment to run Windows inside osX. A lot off people are going to buy a Mac just to run Windows and thats it, osX is a bonus just as Linux is a bonus to them.

See my reply to you above.

Originally Posted by Pierre B.

Like destroying development of OS X software?

Can't destroy something that doesn't exist.
Neither Dassault Systemes nor Valve are showing any signs of porting to OSX, which are the two biggest vendors keeping me in need of Windows (and Virtual PC won't work since both vendor's software requires high performance).

[Peter Bonte]

Originally Posted by P

The Red box was a rumor back in the days when Apple was talking about boxes, in the same vein as calling the Java VM "Green box" - people thought just Yellow box and Blue box weren't enough.

Steve never confirmed Windows compability. Someone else, Schiller I think, just said that they weren't going to make it harder on people trying to do that and that it probably would work.

I have to agree with u, all the red book info i can find is based on rumor. Albeit very persistent rumor, i strongly remember an MacFormat article on this subject. I hate it when rumor and fact gets so mixed up all the time, especially Mac related.

But you have to agree with me that the Windows implementation at the time was unacceptable, imagine running Apple software inside Windows on a Mactel. They have the API's and worked on it for 8 years, it better be good.

http://www.stepwise.com/SpecialCover...platforms.html

Rhapsody/Intel
Full Mach implementation, with Apple's new Advanced Look and Feel. Includes all Yellow Box APIs, but does not provide any Blue Box compatibilty with Macintosh software.

YellowBox/Windows (NT or 95)
Yellow Box APIs on top of the Windows operating system. Does not include the Mach underpinnings, but instead relies on native Windows services for these features. Applications created using the Yellow Box APIs will run with a native Windows look and feel. The required dll's to ship applications for the Yellow Box on Windows will be free of charge.

[Peter Bonte]

Originally Posted by Pierre B.

Like destroying development of OS X software?

Mactel isn't here to replace Windows XP, its not fighting with XP. It has to coexist as good as possible so people see osX as the successor to XP, its a fight with Vista. The biggest OS war in history this is, crazy going to be the next few years.

Its just now with the recent court rulings on MS that Apple and the clones can take this step, expect a Mactel that runs Windows just fine (Vanderpool, red box or whatever) and other manufacturers producing "made for osX" compatible hardware. The proposition to give osX free to the 100$ laptop project is just a hint to us that Apple will license there OS to DELL and others, there crazy if they don't do this.

[CaptainHaddock]

Steve Jobs isn't going to spend Apple's money and engineering resources to either emulate Windows or build a virtual machine for Windows in OS X — regardless of any old Rhapsody rumours. Trust me. He's not trying to compete as a "me too" Wintel maker. In fact, that's the last thing he wants.

Windows co-exists with other OSs just fine. I run Windows on Linux or Linux on Windows and I can have both OSs installed on the same disk.

Windows does not co-exist "just fine", even in your situation. The only way to do what you've done is to install Windows first, repartition your disk with third-party tools, and then install Linux because Linux (not Windows) knows how to co-exist. You might also have to manually configure your boot loader to get it working smoothly. And if you ever upgrade your Windows partition, it'll overwrite your boot sector and you'll be back to a Windows-only setup (until you fix it) because Windows always assumes it's the only OS on your system.

The average consumer or small business will never jump through those hoops to try and get OS X and Windows on the same shiny white box. They'll just buy a $400 piece-of-crap Dell.

[volcano]

Originally Posted by Peter Bonte

Its just now with the recent court rulings on MS that Apple and the clones can take this step, expect a Mactel that runs Windows just fine (Vanderpool, red box or whatever) and other manufacturers producing "made for osX" compatible hardware. The proposition to give osX free to the 100$ laptop project is just a hint to us that Apple will license there OS to DELL and others, there crazy if they don't do this.

Those $100 laptops will be running Linux.

Apple will never, ever (insert another "ever" here for fun) license Mac OS X (or any of their future releases) to companies like Dell. You'll never see it. Steve Jobs wants Apple's OS only on Apple hardware - and it's blatantly obvious that he'd never want to see it on some cheap, aesthetically displeasing hardware like Dell, Compaq, or HP. Monopolistic? To an extent, yes. But think about all the envelopes Apple's hardware has pushed thus far. If it wasn't for Apple, we would have never seen a computer in a monitor (iMac), a computer the size of a tiny box (Mac Mini), or the classy & sassy looks of the sleek Aluminum Powerbooks and Powermacs. I know it's all about the OS - but Apple's hardware looks better than 99.9% of the competitors sad excuses for hardware.

[Simon]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaddock

Windows does not co-exist "just fine", even in your situation. The only way to do what you've done is to install Windows first, repartition your disk with third-party tools, and then install Linux because Linux (not Windows) knows how to co-exist. You might also have to manually configure your boot loader to get it working smoothly. And if you ever upgrade your Windows partition, it'll overwrite your boot sector and you'll be back to a Windows-only setup (until you fix it) because Windows always assumes it's the only OS on your system.

Thanks for correcting that statement. At the lab where I work we use Linux/Windows dual-boots on notebook PC hardware. It's a major pain in the neck to get Win to co-exist with any flavor of Linux on the same disk. The boot loader is tricky and of course the brain dead BIOS of the PCs isn't helping either. The way we normally try to get it to run it is to have Win think it's just by itself and have Linux work around it.

If anything, the Mac has been the easiest hardware platform to run multiple OSes on. VirtualPC may be slow, but it will only gain from the Intel switch. No standard x86 PC is a match for the Mac's versatility.

[Peter Bonte]

Originally Posted by volcano

Those $100 laptops will be running Linux.

Yes, but Apple did offer osX for free. In other words, a license for a Mac clone!

Originally Posted by volcano

Apple will never, ever (insert another "ever" here for fun) license Mac OS X (or any of their future releases) to companies like Dell. You'll never see it.

Only if Hell freezes and pigs can fly?

[Pierre B.]

Originally Posted by mduell

Can't destroy something that doesn't exist.

Right, talk about killing it while still in its mama's belly. Apple makes an enormous effort to get developers port their software on the upcoming OS-X-on-Intel platform. And also to port their own software.

[Pierre B.]

Originally Posted by Peter Bonte

Mactel isn't here to replace Windows XP, its not fighting with XP. It has to coexist as good as possible so people see osX as the successor to XP, its a fight with Vista. The biggest OS war in history this is, crazy going to be the next few years.

Run them both on the same computer and they will compete. It is inevitable. And guess what developers will do once they find out that the user can run comfortably the Windows version of the software on a Mac-Intel? Right, they will kill immediately development of the Mac version, or if they were reluctant to port initially their Mac code to Mac-Intel, they will never do it.

Market share is a huge issue here. Apple told us they will do nothing to prevent Windows installation on an Intel-Mac; I will add that they need to make it painful enough, otherwise the Mac software is going to die. Unless this is their plan .

[P]

Originally Posted by Peter Bonte

Only if Hell freezes and pigs can fly?

Remember what Apple's front page looked like on the day they released iTunes for Windows?

[Peter Bonte]

Originally Posted by Pierre B.

Run them both on the same computer and they will compete. It is inevitable. And guess what developers will do once they find out that the user can run comfortably the Windows version of the software on a Mac-Intel? Right, they will kill immediately development of the Mac version, or if they were reluctant to port initially their Mac code to Mac-Intel, they will never do it.

Thats exactly the same problem Vista is going to have, why make a vista version if the XP software works good on it. There will always be a demand for osX native software and if Apple's marketshare go's up to 5-10 or even 20% (not unrealistic) native software is going to be developed, maybe more than we want.

Originally Posted by P.

Remember what Apple's front page looked like on the day they released iTunes for Windows?

Euh, no. Something with flying pigs?

[Simon]

No, rather with snow, hell and stuff...