[Link]

I never thought about this before, but here we go

12" iBook
Intel® Celeron M™ 383 (you won't find that real speed ANYWHERE)
Intel Graphics Media Accelerator 900
512 PC3200 DDR SDRAM (128mb shared to graphics)
40gb SATA hard drive
combo drive

Man you intel fanboys are really gonna be eating this one

[Voch]

Originally Posted by Link

(you won't find that real speed ANYWHERE)

http://www.intel.com/products/processor_number/info.htm

All of this is up in the air until at least next spring, and it'll likely be "you get what you pay for." But I guess it's fun to speculate.

/still cool with my 667Mhz...

Voch

[SSharon]

Integrated graphics? eww. If we have it how will I make fun of cheap Dells?

[ghporter]

One major issue Apple had with IBM is the lack of low power, low temperature PowerPC processors for laptop use. Note how many G5 laptops there aren't. Intel has been working vigorously for a long time to create power-conserving, low heat CPUs for laptops, and has made a huge amount of progress in that area-as in the Centrino-related mobile Pentium line. The potential for a Mac laptop that uses only a few watts, doesn't heat up, and still performs really fast is the first thing we'll see when MacIntel laptops start coming out.

I hope Apple does NOT go with integrated video, simply because it is a bad tradeoff for the user. Dedicated video RAM makes for much better video overall, and let's face it, a beautiful screen is part of the Mac experience, isn't it?

[mpancha]

Originally Posted by ghporter

I hope Apple does NOT go with integrated video, simply because it is a bad tradeoff for the user. Dedicated video RAM makes for much better video overall, and let's face it, a beautiful screen is part of the Mac experience, isn't it?

I concur

[one sick puppy]

I would be in heaven if I could dual boot a system with native Windows XP and Mac OSX on iBook-quality hardware.

The only reason I bought my iBook was because there the only comparable wintel system available in the price point of the iBook 12" a year ago was the Averatec systems with their dubious quality.

Truth be told I'm very impressed with Mac OSX and the iBook hardware, but it hasn't been able to aleviate my need/desire for a Windows laptop.

Laptops are the way the computer industry is going. Even gaming is coming to laptops.

[mitchell_pgh]

What about a system like this today for $1099 with a wide screen 12".

Pentium® M Processor 725(1.60 GHz/400MHz FSB) 12" w/64MB Video
256MB DDR SDRAM 1 Dimm
40GB Hard Drive
802.11 b/g, 54Mbps
Combo drive

[Flip500]

one sick puppy: I don't know what it's called, but you could split you hard-drive so it acts as 2. and just as soon as macs get intel chips macs will be able to support Windows! So if you go to some place like a Genius Bar at an apple store and ask about how you would do those things, I know people who have split their hard-drives and have Mac OS9 and Mac OSX and you just hold down the "H" key or something like that to get to the OS that doesn't automatically start (for him OS9). I would ask him for you but I won't see him until the begining of the school year...

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by Flip500

one sick puppy: I don't know what it's called, but you could split you hard-drive so it acts as 2.

It's called "partitioning." Each partition of a single hard drive can appear to the OS as a separate (logical) hard drive. Here's an article about how to go about using the Disk Utility to manage partitions. Just be very careful and understand what you're doing before you start.

Dual booting is another thing alltogether. Not only does the main hard drive need multiple partitions for multiple OSs, but the boot loader code at the begining of the drive needs to know about the multople OSs and how to select which one to boot when. This is something that is fairly complex for the basic to intermediate level PC user, and that's why when you install Linux on a PC the installation routine handles this for you.

Considering the fact the Macs and PCs boot in completely different ways, it's going to be interesting to see how the Intel-based Macs handle this. Apple has apparently said that they are abandoning Open Firmware, so the current Mac boot procedure seems to be out the window. I would HATE to see Intel-based Macs boot the same way PCs do; the whole philosophy behind the process is very anti-Mac. And it takes WAY too long, too!

[mitchell_pgh]

ghporter, I agree... I'm sure Apple won't punish us with the Windows like startup.

[Flip500]

The only reason I would do that is to get games that are only for Windows... but your right I'd feel better just knowing that mac's greatness is preserved than just playing a game.

[mitchell_pgh]

Originally Posted by Flip500

The only reason I would do that is to get games that are only for Windows... but your right I'd feel better just knowing that mac's greatness is preserved than just playing a game.

I wouldn't be surprised if you see more Mac games coming out due to the shift.

[Flip500]

wow, hadn't thought of that, and it's just about a deffinate when I really think about what this new intel switch will do...

[mpancha]

Originally Posted by ghporter

I would HATE to see Intel-based Macs boot the same way PCs do; the whole philosophy behind the process is very anti-Mac. And it takes WAY too long, too!

My PC (celeron 1.2ghz w/768MB RAM, and cheapest parts I could find) boots up in under 20 seconds (power on -> Login Screen)

My iBook (G3 1.2Ghz, 768MB RAM) takes over 1 minute.

[Kyros]

The shift doesn't make it easier to make games for mac in any way at all, so there is no reason for there to be more games for mac. Did the number of mac games suddenly increase after the switch from 68k to PPC? It's basically the same thing.

[Flip500]

Well dont' kill my hope man.... just don't.

[ApeInTheShell]

Well your machine must have a problem mpancha because my g/f 's iBook (14" 1 GHZ, 256mb RAM) boots up in less than a minute. My iMac G3 DV (400 MHZ, 576 MB RAM) is nothing but net. The progress bar loads up in no time flat along with the desktop. Perhaps bad RAM?

[mitchell_pgh]

Originally Posted by Kyros

The shift doesn't make it easier to make games for mac in any way at all, so there is no reason for there to be more games for mac. Did the number of mac games suddenly increase after the switch from 68k to PPC? It's basically the same thing.

Actually, it will be easier to port games.

1) There will be no need to byte-swap any data during file I/O and Mac to PC network operations

2) It will be MUCH easier porting assembly code [because they will be writing assembly code for one CPU]

3) Any sort of architecture-specific tricks a game application takes advantage of will be a lot easier to get working

http://www.insidemacgames.com/features/view.php?ID=373

[Spidey79]

bulbasaur.... or Pikachu?

[Flip500]

Okay, okay... Spidey: What the hell?!

[mpancha]

Originally Posted by ApeInTheShell

Well your machine must have a problem mpancha because my g/f 's iBook (14" 1 GHZ, 256mb RAM) boots up in less than a minute. My iMac G3 DV (400 MHZ, 576 MB RAM) is nothing but net. The progress bar loads up in no time flat along with the desktop. Perhaps bad RAM?

I thought there was a problem, had the hardware tested via the test cd and the genius bar... everything is kosher. Starting up takes too long. Once im in the OS, everthings runs smoothly. I have yet to come across an ibook that loaded quickly, but maybe that's just my luck.

[Flip500]

It's not like it's a big deal... there's alot of worse things that could be wrong!

[mpancha]

Originally Posted by Flip500

It's not like it's a big deal... there's alot of worse things that could be wrong!

yup, exactly. then again, my last ibook suffered the good old Logic Board problem. So I'm not complaining about a little slow startup time.

[the_snitch]

I think that the intel switch provides an opportunity to differentiate th eibook and powerbook further apart. Lets face it, at the moment the 12" ibook and 12" powerbook are pretty much the same thing, with the ibook being 1 revision behind. They both have the same screen res, ram, airport, bluetooth option, etc.

With intel macs, the ibooks will most likely use celeron M cpus, and the powerbooks use Pentium M (Centrino) CPUs, ibooks may have integrated graphics, powerbooks dedicated gfx.

[teknopimp]

well, as long as it looks cool and has nice packaging...