[Scandalous Ion Cannon]

Make an educated guess.

[dazzla]

Mini and iBook, then iMac, then Powerbook and Powermac.

[rickey939]

iPod.

[rjenkinson]

anything with a G4 still in it then anything with a G5 in it.

-r.

[stevesnj]

I thnk steve even said the PowerMacs would be first didn't he?

[storer]

I say the Power line. Not eMacs, they appear to have been discontinued for sale to the public (they're available through the edu store).

[DeathMan]

Steve said iMacs and iBooks first, did he not?

[ism]

Make sense for the powerbooks first. The Powermacs are fine as they are with G5's. As are the iMacs. The ibooks and minis are meant to be entry level/consumer stuff for which the G4 should be fine for a bit. The powerbooks however are already not a lot better than the ibooks and so will get the update first. It's needed there. It isn't needed anywhere else at this moment in time.

Maybe at a push the mini's might sneak it as a tester, and to get more windows users.

[Sourbook]

A mini trojan horse.

[Chuckit]

iBooks and PowerBooks. They have been the most stagnant, which appears to be because of the chips available to Apple, so you can bet they're first on Apple's list to receive new chips when they can.

[Salty]

Actually I'd laugh if they did the Mini in January, the iBook in Feburary, the iMac in March, the PowerBook in April, and the PowerMac in May or something.

That said I DOUBT that'd happen. The only reason I could see Apple continuing to sell the PowerBooks with G4s is because some pro apps will not be out in time. That said, I don't think this is going to hold Apple back. More than likely they'll simply keep a small suply of PPC powerbooks on hand and sell them in tandem with the more hotly promoted and more feature rich PowerBooks that'll sport Pentium Ms.
The Power Macs will be the last to go. Probably with the iMac jumping ship around the same time as the PowerBooks.

[Randman]

I thought the PowerMacs were going to the last ones, sometime in 2007.

The mini seems the most logical but an Intel PowerBook that kicks butt would make the most headlines.

Also, eMacs were EOL'd.

[baw]

Which Mac will go Intel first?

Not mine.

[baw]

Originally Posted by Randman

Also, eMacs were EOL'd.

Ehem, http://www.apple.com/education/emac/

[starman]

Powerbooks need an upgrade NOW.

[dazzla]

Pro machines seem more likely to be done last, it gives time for the pro apps to be ported. Things like CS2 etc aren't going to be ready for first thing 2006 and the kind of apps that are ran on Mac Mini's and iBook are the type of apps that will run fine on Rosetta. Can't see them doing the pro line first simply because of applications.

[Goldfinger]

Originally Posted by starman

Powerbooks needed an upgrade LAST WEDNESDAY. (a decent one)

Fixed.

[Warung]

I'd say the iBooks first (as a trial for the PBs) mid 2006, then the PowerBooks early 2007, iMacs/Mac minis...and then the Powermacs late 2007.

[wdlove]

I think that the iBook/PowerBook will be among the first.

[PacHead]

Ok, this is a dumb poll. Why guess when Apple has already vaguely stated their plans ?

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by dazzla

Pro machines seem more likely to be done last, it gives time for the pro apps to be ported. Things like CS2 etc aren't going to be ready for first thing 2006 and the kind of apps that are ran on Mac Mini's and iBook are the type of apps that will run fine on Rosetta. Can't see them doing the pro line first simply because of applications.

Wouldn't that make the intel non-pro machines superior to the pro machines? I expect to see a typical Apple processor migration; the pro machines to get the latest and greatest first, and the low end machines get bumped up to G5s

[dazzla]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak

Wouldn't that make the intel non-pro machines superior to the pro machines? I expect to see a typical Apple processor migration; the pro machines to get the latest and greatest first, and the low end machines get bumped up to G5s

Not really, there are going to be low end and high end Intel processors used in Macs. They could pop a Yonah into the iBooks and Mac Mini's and although it'd be an improvement over the G4's (in some stuff) it still wouldn't compare to the Powermacs.

Besides, Intel's roadmap dictates what machines will be used first, Yonah will be out in January, which is a prime chip for the low end Macs, chips like Conroe which would be nice for the Powermacs aren't going to be available until the end of 2006 at the earliest. The kind of apps that are used on Pro machines are the kind of apps that aren't going to be turned into universal binaries overnight. I can't say the same about the kind of apps used on the low end.

Here's another good read on it:

http://arstechnica.com/columns/mac/mac-20050608.ars

[ghporter]

Didn't they already indicate they'd go with Power Macs first? It makes the most sense to go with the high-performance platform first and make it really scream. After that, I think PowerBooks will get the treatment-and they'll scream too.

[Salty]

They just introed Quad PowerMacs. Do you think Steve only wants to have Quad cores for a lil bit?

[dazzla]

Originally Posted by ghporter

Didn't they already indicate they'd go with Power Macs first? It makes the most sense to go with the high-performance platform first and make it really scream. After that, I think PowerBooks will get the treatment-and they'll scream too.

a) they won't have Pro apps ready for x86 in a few months time, Rosetta simply will not do for the major applications
b) they've just introduced Quad G5s with the potential to keep speed bumping these until Intel chips are ready.

Simply put, there will not be any Intel chip suitable for the Powermacs in June next year, I can't imagine they're going to put P4s in there, especially as Intel are completely ditching the netburst (netburst = Pentium 4) architecture. That leaves only the P-M and Yonah available early next year and they're definitley not going to build Powermacs from them.

[Eriamjh]

Whatever happens will happen. Apple has only vaguely given us a timeframe. Anything can change that.

I still think that the first Intel's will be like the first PPCs.

Sucky.

Wait for Rev. B.

[Lateralus]

Originally Posted by ghporter

Didn't they already indicate they'd go with Power Macs first? It makes the most sense to go with the high-performance platform first and make it really scream. After that, I think PowerBooks will get the treatment-and they'll scream too.

Quite the opposite. Apple has indicated that the Power Macs will stay PowerPC through sometime in 2007, possibly later.

Intel doesn't have anything planned that can offer a viable replacement for the G5 until 2007, and IBM still has plenty of goodies in the pipeline. Including speedbumps for the 970MP and the rumored 980.

The PowerBooks, iBooks and Minis will be going Intel first because they all require low-power chips, which IBM still isn't concentrating on. And the G4 is already tapped out.

I'm banking on the PowerBooks going Intel around June, followed by the iBooks and the Mini in the fall. Then the iMac and Power Mac going Intel sometime in mid to late 2007, after the installed base of Intel software has grown enough to warrant it.

[nredman]

ibooks & powerbooks - fall 2006 (for back to school)

[Salty]

I think Apple might even not want people buying PBs now because they realize how little they can offer. So they're more trying to get people who don't need them now to wait until they can offer an awesome product.

[Scandalous Ion Cannon]

i think it would be most logical to go from low end to high end. Face it Apple could release Intel Macs tomorrow if they wanted to. The problem is with the software. No a 20% drop is speed is not acceptable in emulation, neither is not being able to do Ali-vec code. Apple needs to come out with some low end Intel mac's where the users use email and safari primarily. This gives all the pro apps time to get recoded into Intel compatible apps.

If Apple came out with a high end tower with intel then testers say photoshop runs slow as hell on it it is a baaaad start. Yet if a mini came out it would be perfect as people don't expect blazing speed and it is a switcher machine anyway.

I think the order will be:

Mini
Ibooks/powerbooks
iMac
Towers
Servers

[ism]

Software is an issue, obviously. But Apple obviously can be working on the software whilst developing the hardware and the major software players in the pro app category will also be privy to the development cycle I'm sure.

[Scandalous Ion Cannon]

Originally Posted by ism

Software is an issue, obviously. But Apple obviously can be working on the software whilst developing the hardware and the major software players in the pro app category will also be privy to the development cycle I'm sure.

Remember how long Photoshop and Quark took to go OSX? After the Intel announcement Adobe said Steve was downplaying how much work is involved and that it would take a significant amount of time to make it FAT.

[Salty]

With Aperture out Adobe had better move quick or they'll risk losing customers. And they know that.

[Scandalous Ion Cannon]

Originally Posted by Salty

With Aperture out Adobe had better move quick or they'll risk losing customers. And they know that.

Or they can get pissed and punish Apple by taking even longer.

[starman]

Originally Posted by Scandalous Ion Cannon

Remember how long Photoshop and Quark took to go OSX? After the Intel announcement Adobe said Steve was downplaying how much work is involved and that it would take a significant amount of time to make it FAT.

I've been spending a lot of time doing Intel conversions lately. Who said that from Adobe? It's really not THAT hard if you have good engineers.

Mike

[Scandalous Ion Cannon]

Originally Posted by starman

I've been spending a lot of time doing Intel conversions lately. Who said that from Adobe? It's really not THAT hard if you have good engineers.

Mike

The Prez. Whoever that is.

At any rate remember how when Apple first showed OSX and the Adobe prez said he had ONE engineer convert photoshop in about 20 min to carbon (and joked that he wasn't even that good).

Then it took what... another 2-3 years for photoshop to come out?

[starman]

I guess it depends on the situation. I rebuilt our stuff to run as Universal Binaries VERY fast because we didn't have any funky crap in our code.

Mike

[Salty]

yah I imagine Adobe has lots of funky code. Either way though I should hope Adobe will be able to get Photoshop out quicker than later.

[Weyland-Yutani]

And educated guess eh? The portables.

W-Y

[Scandalous Ion Cannon]

I'd say the portables are the most needed but not necessarily the ones that will be first.

[JoshuaZ]

I'd say Powerbooks, iBooks, and Minis. Clearly the portables need it the most. Really anything with a G4 needs it before G5.

[SomeToast]

Originally Posted by Salty

I think Apple might even not want people buying PBs now because they realize how little they can offer.

That explains the recent updates to the PowerBook line! It's Apple's attempt to keep people from buying one now... those cagey bastards!

[Scandalous Ion Cannon]

Originally Posted by SomeToast

That explains the recent updates to the PowerBook line! It's Apple's attempt to keep people from buying one now... those cagey bastards!

Ya Apple really upped the processors on that new update.

Only Mac users would run out and buy the new models because they have a slightly higher screen rez on 2 of the models.

[Warung]

Originally Posted by Salty

With Aperture out Adobe had better move quick or they'll risk losing customers.

I doubt that anybody who is proficient at using Photoshop will switch to "Aperature". From reading the system requirements the app looks like total bloatware.

[Salty]

Originally Posted by Warung

I doubt that anybody who is proficient at using Photoshop will switch to "Aperature". From reading the system requirements the app looks like total bloatware.

My bet is that any Pro system with Intel procs is gona be able to run Aperture no problem. As well there are lots of people who use Photoshop exclusively for things like colour correction and what not. And I imagine if Adobe doesn't fill that hole right away we'll see what Apple has lying in wait encase Adobe ever does jump ship.

[Scandalous Ion Cannon]

Originally Posted by Warung

I doubt that anybody who is proficient at using Photoshop will switch to "Aperature". From reading the system requirements the app looks like total bloatware.

Bloatware? Gimmie a break. Have you ever used RAW files in photoshop? Just using ONE on a Dual g5 is a pain in the ass. Aperture does a much better job than photoshop by the looks of it with MULTIPLE files.

[Weyland-Yutani]

Aperture is there as a warning to Adobe. Saying: We will murder Photoshop on the Macintosh if you do not play nice.

Remember Premiere..

cheers

W-Y

[Goldfinger]

Why does everbody think of Aperture as some sort of replacement of Photoshop ? NOBODY will drop Photoshop because of Aperture since they are completely different apps.

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by Goldfinger

Why does everbody think of Aperture as some sort of replacement of Photoshop ? NOBODY will drop Photoshop because of Aperture since they are completely different apps.

No need for drama when there is none.

cheers

W-Y

[Scandalous Ion Cannon]

Originally Posted by Goldfinger

Why does everbody think of Aperture as some sort of replacement of Photoshop ? NOBODY will drop Photoshop because of Aperture since they are completely different apps.

Yes but many people may put off upgrading to newer photoshops or even stop using it for 80% of their RAW work.