Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

Oranges for Six · Jun 3, 2005, 05:39 AM

analogika · Jun 3, 2005, 06:10 AM

no.

I mean, even apart from the odd typos in there, and the fact that that is NOT a google server, but merely some guy's .mac account (remember, in a web URL, EVERYTHING stuck in front of an "@" sign is completely irrelevant, unless the server actually has access restricted to members only).

This is the page:
http://homepage.mac.com/dzweben/pr/jun/pbg5.html

Pierre B. · Jun 3, 2005, 10:59 AM

Originally Posted by Oranges for Six

Plausible?

No. Unless this G5 is some kind of PPE from the CELL architecture. But at this clock speed it would perform worse than the G4 we have today. So, again no.

wtmcgee · Jun 3, 2005, 01:49 PM

I think, as most everyone has said in here so far, expecting a G5 Powerbook this summer or fall is a bit farfetched. ANY update to the PB line would be nice @ WWDC if you ask me, but I don't expect anything honestly.

SEkker · Jun 4, 2005, 03:31 PM

I think the latest news is likely correct - the next processor will be Intel's new mobile chip.

I thought it simply a marketing ploy by Apple until I remembered the public statement by the head of Intel where he spends an hour a week removing viruses and spyware from his daughter's computer, and when asked what the options were, he said to buy a mac.

Apple went with Intel when it put the iPod and iTunes on windows machines. Why not put OS X on intel hardware? This would let Apple be price competitive on all hardware -- going with Intel would mean AMD would also be a backup option. I suspect it won't be any harder to port the OS over to one of these dual-core chips than making it work on a dual-core G4 or Cell CPU.

It also makes me wonder if M$ is far enough behind in the game of making Longhorn work with the new Intel chips that this is a way for Intel to get a market for their new chips next year, rather than wait 2 years for M$.

lilrabbit129 · Jun 4, 2005, 04:34 PM

According to CNET the Apple-Intel rumors are true, Apple is supposedly going to make an announcement on monday.

I think it might be partially true, in that Apple might use an Intel chip. I don't think it will be x86. I see it more like Intel might make a PowerPC compatible chip; Recompiling all OSX apps to x86 would be a HUGE and costly process. Sure OSX could be ported, but what about all the programs? Will they be emulated? Emulating a different chip results in huge performance losses.

Pierre B. · Jun 5, 2005, 09:14 AM

Originally Posted by lilrabbit129

I think it might be partially true, in that Apple might use an Intel chip. I don't think it will be x86. I see it more like Intel might make a PowerPC compatible chip; Recompiling all OSX apps to x86 would be a HUGE and costly process.

No, recompiling is not HUGE. Recompiling is just a small step in the process. The problem is that many programs should be re-written to take advantage of the new architecture and keep perform reasonably. Perhaps not from the ground-up, but tweaked in a big way. I cannot imagine developers be happy with this.

In the end, what is the so BIG advantage to move to the x86 architecture that justifies this hell of a transition? And don't remind me the 68k --> PPC transition as an example, the situation now is completely different (there is a huge code base now and the x86 processors are not that much faster than the IBM ones as was PPC vs. 68k ten years back).

Pierre B. · Jun 5, 2005, 09:17 AM

Originally Posted by SEkker

I think the latest news is likely correct - the next processor will be Intel's new mobile chip.

If you believe that Apple can afford to maintain two different CPU architectures, with appropriate OS support and convince the developers to do the same, then I am afraid you are kidding yourself.

SEkker · Jun 5, 2005, 09:44 AM

Originally Posted by Pierre B.

If you believe that Apple can afford to maintain two different CPU architectures, with appropriate OS support and convince the developers to do the same, then I am afraid you are kidding yourself.

I think it is correct because this gives Apple a hardware future that was lacking with either IBM or Moto/Freescale.

Do I think it will be easy? No.

Do I think it's real? Yes. Ever since the head of Intel admitted he was spending an hour a week removing spyware/viruses from his daughter's computer and answered buy a mac when asked what one should do about it.

I am wondering if Intel will make a special edition chip with Alta Vic, etc, units to make it easier to make the transition for Apple.

Tomorrow should be an interesting day!

Pierre B. · Jun 5, 2005, 09:58 AM

Originally Posted by SEkker

Tomorrow should be an interesting day!

Yeah, I am very curious to see what this Monday will bring. But I cannot believe that Apple will switch to x86 processors from Intel. I would more see a special deal allowing Intel to manufacture PowerPC processors for Apple, among others.

lilrabbit129 · Jun 5, 2005, 02:14 PM

Originally Posted by Pierre B.

No, recompiling is not HUGE. Recompiling is just a small step in the process. The problem is that many programs should be re-written to take advantage of the new architecture and keep perform reasonably. Perhaps not from the ground-up, but tweaked in a big way. I cannot imagine developers be happy with this.

In the end, what is the so BIG advantage to move to the x86 architecture that justifies this hell of a transition? And don't remind me the 68k --> PPC transition as an example, the situation now is completely different (there is a huge code base now and the x86 processors are not that much faster than the IBM ones as was PPC vs. 68k ten years back).

You're right, I misspoke (was posting in a hurry) I meant that porting all the OSX apps would be a huge deal. Recompiling might not be a huge deal, but just getting everything to work on a new chip will take quite a few changes.

MacMagnus · Jun 6, 2005, 06:13 PM

Originally Posted by SEkker

I
I am wondering if Intel will make a special edition chip with Alta Vic, etc, units to make it easier to make the transition for Apple.

Tomorrow should be an interesting day!

I don't think they will. Part of the reason to make the switch to intel is undoubtedly to save some money. The reason intel chips are cheaper is that they produce them in such large quantities. If they were to make one especially for Apple, the cost would be to high fo Apple to save any money on it.

Although I have to say that I would definately prefer it if they did make a unique mac chip. The more that separates the mac from the windoze machines the better. But to be fair, the most significant difference is not in the hardware, but in the OS.

Kenstee · Jun 6, 2005, 08:27 PM

No way Apple is going to waste manpower and invest resources on a technology they are dropping. They have their hands full managing the transition. It's a cold business decision. And they're right.

The future is not G4 or G5 for the PB. I'd be surprised to see anything beyond small incremental "upgrades" if that. Who is going to want yesterday's technology? My wallet will be in my pocket until the Intel PBs are lauched. What's a year anyway?