[Nuks]

I can't find much info on this, but I am looking to get a powerbook soon. I can hold off until the Intels come out, so are they worth it?

What are the pros and cons?
Should I, or shouldn't I?
Questions, questions....

Thanks everyone.

[mduell]

YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY

But buy a PowerBook now. I wouldn't touch a first revision from Apple.

[SirCastor]

Depends on how long you can wait. I personally am waiting for the 2nd rev intel PB. Maybe third if they really do release it in Jan.

My biggest concern about the chips is that intel's are notoriously hot. So have been PPCs, but I've been told that they're worse. However, the mobile line Intel's got in the works sounds good with the low power stuff. Cross your fingers I guess.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by SirCastor

My biggest concern about the chips is that intel's are notoriously hot. So have been PPCs, but I've been told that they're worse. However, the mobile line Intel's got in the works sounds good with the low power stuff. Cross your fingers I guess.

Intel's desktop chips are notoriously hot. Their laptop chips are a whole different ball game; they use very little power and have excellent power management. Yonah (the first chip Apple is likely to use) is expected to cut processor/chipset power consumption by 30% (4.2W -> 3W) at idle.

[bkarlsen]

I just recently picked up a new high res PB. I am simply not willing to deal with the first rev of intel PBs. I would however expect the new intel books 1st quarter of 06. So it simply comes down to whether you want to be a test subject for the first rev of Mactel machines.

[Jawbone54]

My decision is between the first rev Intel Powerbook and the latest high res PPC. I'm leaning towards the PPC, and possibly buying again in a year and a half or so. I'm not going to be running programs through Rosetta at 70% speed.

[Nuks]

So why are they moving to Intel? Better power management (meaning better battery life?)
Faster?
Cheaper?

[Darthmaul4114]

yea, id wait until at least the 2nd or 3rd version of the intel machines before i bought one. wait until most of the kinks are worked out.

[Nuks]

Haha, I'm still trying to figure out why I should wait for Intel.

Are they THAT much better? Good enough that I should wait for the second or third revision? (which will probably be close to a year?)

Will I be dissapointed with the current powerbook?

[toneloco28]

Originally Posted by Nuks

Haha, I'm still trying to figure out why I should wait for Intel.

Are they THAT much better? Good enough that I should wait for the second or third revision? (which will probably be close to a year?)

Will I be dissapointed with the current powerbook?

Personally there's no way I'd buy a ppc powerbook right now. MWSF is less than a month away. I would wait it out till then if even just to see what comes out, and how Rosetta performs. Then you can make more of a informed decision, and not rely on speculation. I have a suspicion that a dual core yonah powerbook, will come very close to, if not surpass todays powerbook in speed while running in emulation. Especially with it's rumored Altivec support in place. Today's pentium-m pretty much kills the g4, so you an imagine what yonah will do.

I think most people's fears of an Apple first generation mactel are grossly overstated. In all likelihood intel is provding all the necessary legwork as far as development of the platform. Gone are the days where Apple has the sole responsibility of designing it's computers innards. Intel has much experience in this regard, and if they fail then the whole industry fails. The centrino platform has been pretty solid since it's inception, and I don't see any indication of that changing.

[Nuks]

^Thanks.
That's exactly the info I was looking for.

[SirCastor]

Originally Posted by Nuks

So why are they moving to Intel? Better power management (meaning better battery life?)
Faster?
Cheaper?

There are numerous reasons, speed and power consumption at the forfront. During the keynote presentation Steve said that Intel's processor roadmap better fit Apple's future.

[Jerome]

I'd buy the current Powerbooks only if we were still in 2003, they are great computers but are way too far behind in speed and performance. I'd wait unless you must get one now. Even if I needed one now, I'd probably go with an iBook to wait for something faster: Intel Powerbooks.

[Nuks]

Alright.
Thanks everyone!
I'll try and hold off as long as I can.

So the first version should probably be good to buy? What happens if there are some problems? Is that for me to fix? Or will Apple help... and are they usually big bugs?

[poppa kristof]

Why hold off if he wants and needs one now? 95% plus of the software out now is PPC only. I know that I dont want to run my software in emulation AGAIN. Some of us older guys know exactly the teething process from goin to 9.2 to 10.3 in dealing with software developers. And that arguably took 4-5 years! I say 10.3 because that version was finnaly ready for mass acceptance. If you have lots of high dollar software, get some of the last PPC Macs and wait until you need to upgrade your software. Software should drive your hardware upgrades.

[SirCastor]

My understanding of Rosetta is that it's translation, not emulation. Thus it's simply telling the new architecture what the old wants it to do. The emulation would mean that it's running a whole faux-machine under there to give native info.

My understanding as well that Rosetta is very good at what it does, and performace is not an issue.

[ping_pong]

I'd rather worry about the software than the hardware. Mac os for Intel hasn't been tested by the market yet.

[Nuks]

Are the bugs that usually come with first gen products easily fixable? Or do they entail hours on the phone with Apple?

[SEkker]

Apple's done this kind of transition once before -- from 68k to PPC CPUs. And those revA machines worked fine.

The differences this time: 1) Jobs is in charge (he was not earlier) 2) the change means these macs will be able to run windows software, giving them added flexibility for those interested in switching 3) the new chips (Yonah, etc) are truly big jumps in processing power; the first generation ppc chips really were not THAT much faster than 68k, the big benefit of moving to ppc was not obvious until the early mobile chips (603 etc), and of course the G3 4) Apple is betting the ranch on being able to ride the iPod success to rejuvenate the mac lineup, so this transition really needs to work 5) Apple has actually had this project underway for 5 years.

Each of these seem to be better this time around. I'm not going to be tossing my G4 laptops right away (in part because I still need a few Classic apps for now), but I'm truly not afraid of the revA mactels.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by Nuks

Are the bugs that usually come with first gen products easily fixable? Or do they entail hours on the phone with Apple?

After my earlier comment I did a bit of research, and Apple's later generation products don't seem to be any better than their first generation.
The bugs that affect any generation can range from easy fixes (return as DOA, get a replacement) to months or years of calling Apple and being promised fixes (like the G5 freezes).

[Nuks]

so SEkker, does that mean that the powerbooks will run XP, or just smaller apps (ie microsoft office)?

[funkysmurf]

Hi,

I'm a bit curious about the whole operating system and application stability part - nobody seems to be mentioning that. We all know that os x is pretty much rock solid now, but can we assume this will remain so on intel hardware?

I mean, it would be nice if the new processors are so fast that an application opens just by you thinking about clicking on its icon, but what good is that if you have to re-boot every 30 minutes

[slugslugslug]

Originally Posted by funkysmurf

We all know that os x is pretty much rock solid now, but can we assume this will remain so on intel hardware?

Yes.

[Cloud]

Does anyone know when these new Intel Macs are coming out?

I am planning to buy a Powerbook in January... but I want the last version before the IntelMac.... will it still be available?

[slugslugslug]

Originally Posted by Cloud

Does anyone know when these new Intel Macs are coming out?

Yes.

But not very many people, and they don't post here.

I am planning to buy a Powerbook in January... but I want the last version before the IntelMac.... will it still be available?

Even if Apple intros a whole line of Intel Powerbooks in 3-ish weeks, I doubt they will require resellers and distributors to burn all their pallets of unsold PPC 'Books.

In any event, if you really want the very last PPC PowerBook, you have to wait 'til the Intel ones to come out and buy the previous model refurb or at some clearance price. Because while I agree with the general consensus that these are probably the last PowerPC ones, only the folks at Apple know for sure.. Remember, the Intel transition isn't supposed to end for another year and a half.

[SirCastor]

here's a question:

Do you think Apple will carry Intel and PPC units of the same line similtaneously? Meaning, If we get to the PowerBook's release, does anyone think that Apple will have the middle unit PPC and the high-end intel?

[goMac]

I wouldn't buy a PowerPC Powerbook right now or ever again. The Intel's are going to be so much faster it won't even be funny.

[slugslugslug]

Originally Posted by SirCastor

here's a question:

Do you think Apple will carry Intel and PPC units of the same line similtaneously? Meaning, If we get to the PowerBook's release, does anyone think that Apple will have the middle unit PPC and the high-end intel?

Well, I've been repeatedly making a wild-ass guess w/r/t this around the forums, so I may as well say it again. I think it would be not unreasonable for Apple to introduce an Intel PowerBook to replace the 12" while keeping the 15 and 17 PPC a bit longer. Folks who need a pro portable with a big screen are also probaly using apps that won't be Intel-native for many more months (Photoshop, Flash). But if you're using a little'un, you probably spend more time with less-demanding apps that might do okay under Rosetta, like Office (oh, and if the Intel switch really starts at MacWorld, iWork '06 will surely be a Universal Binary).

Seems like it could be a decent compromise because I'm sure there are folks who won't want an Intel PB until Adobe Intellifies PhotoShop.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by slugslugslug

I think it would be not unreasonable for Apple to introduce an Intel PowerBook to replace the 12" while keeping the 15 and 17 PPC a bit longer.

I wouldn't bet on it. The newer versions of OS X x86 can run Altivec Code natively as SSE3. This means all those G4 accelerations in Photoshop and the Pro Apps will run at potentially faster speeds than the G4 on the Pentium.

[slugslugslug]

Originally Posted by goMac

I wouldn't bet on it.

Neither would I. I'm blocking my bookie's calls til after MacWorld

The newer versions of OS X x86 can run Altivec Code natively as SSE3. This means all those G4 accelerations in Photoshop and the Pro Apps will run at potentially faster speeds than the G4 on the Pentium.

If so, that's frickin' awesome. Maybe PowerBooks and iBooks will show up at the same time. As long as I can buy something small that blows my 1GHz Ti out of the water next spring or summer, I'll be happy.

[poppa kristof]

I have a very hard time believing in Rosetta and Apple's claim of speed. I remember discussions long ago on why there was not a emulator of PPC. Many reasons came up but basically it had to do with the PPC being far more complex and more performance based. The X86 at the time was not fast enough to handle the extra calculations the PPC did in the same cycle. Remember the PearPC/CherryOS debacle? Is it different now in the X86 land? Maybe, but there is no way to find out until the product is out and tests are done. I can guarentee that PPC optimised software will be around for 3 more years at least. By then, a current computer will be 3 plus years old and then it might be time to go Intel. And by the time 2008/9 rolls around, Adobe and Microsoft will put out native versions. Basically said, get a PPC now or either wait till version 2 which may be released in Q2 of 2007. Or better yet wait till the Intel PowerBooks are released and get a current version at discount. But please hold off on Intel for now.

[ssdd108]

Originally Posted by poppa kristof

I have a very hard time believing in Rosetta and Apple's claim of speed. I remember discussions long ago on why there was not a emulator of PPC. Many reasons came up but basically it had to do with the PPC being far more complex and more performance based. The X86 at the time was not fast enough to handle the extra calculations the PPC did in the same cycle. Remember the PearPC/CherryOS debacle? Is it different now in the X86 land? Maybe, but there is no way to find out until the product is out and tests are done. I can guarentee that PPC optimised software will be around for 3 more years at least. By then, a current computer will be 3 plus years old and then it might be time to go Intel. And by the time 2008/9 rolls around, Adobe and Microsoft will put out native versions. Basically said, get a PPC now or either wait till version 2 which may be released in Q2 of 2007. Or better yet wait till the Intel PowerBooks are released and get a current version at discount. But please hold off on Intel for now.

I've fooled around with the hacked OS X on a Celeron 2.66 and it is pretty snappy with iLife and FCP. Faster than my Mac Mini, iMac G4, and PowerBook G4(I bought it a few weeks before the Intel announcement BTW ) . I don't own a G5 mac so I can't comment on that cpu.

I can just imagine how fast it will be on Yonah which has SSE3 and a superior architecture. I believe Adobe, Microsoft and others will have native apps before the end of the 2006. After all these companies have lots of experience with Intel chips!

If I were the parent I would wait at least for MacWorld. The PowerBook G4 is not worth the $2,000 I paid for it in terms of performance. But it is very very sleek. I

[iomatic]

What about hardware support in this unsupported venture, ssdd108; can you capture video via FireWire, access USB devices, etc.?

Curious.

[iomatic]

argh. burp

[goMac]

Originally Posted by poppa kristof

I have a very hard time believing in Rosetta and Apple's claim of speed. I remember discussions long ago on why there was not a emulator of PPC. Many reasons came up but basically it had to do with the PPC being far more complex and more performance based. The X86 at the time was not fast enough to handle the extra calculations the PPC did in the same cycle.

Apple uses SSE3 to emulate the extras needed, and SSE3 is fast, hence the fast emulation and SSE3 requirement.

[Big Mac]

nay

[Nuks]

Hahah. so many conflicting arguements... I think I'm more confused then before!
I think I'm definitely going to wait until the Intels come out, wait another couple weeks to see if there's any major problems, then get one (Hey, we can't ALL wait until the revision! Someone's got to buy them in the first place!)

[CaptainHaddock]

I'm still skeptical. Apple has achieved a very high level of finesse with its OS X / PPC / hardware integration — Open Firmware, Firewire target mode, Firewire boot mode, high-speed buses, tilt sensors (in the Powerbooks), rapid sleep mode — few or none of these exist in the PC world, and I suspect any January Intel-based products will be too rushed to have this high level of hardware attention.

In fact, I'm scared it'll take years (or forever) for Apple to get its Intel machines in line, quality and feature-wise, with its PPC machines.

[rem]

It seems my reasons for preferring RISC architecture (e.g., Intel NAY) are outdated so my preference is nostalgic rather than based upon logic.

What would you guys think about Apple using AMD processors? AMD seems to be kicking Intel's @ss these days with their dual-core 64-bit processor (performance and cost-wise), which already works on FreeBSD's kernel.

[toneloco28]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaddock

I'm still skeptical. Apple has achieved a very high level of finesse with its OS X / PPC / hardware integration — Open Firmware, Firewire target mode, Firewire boot mode, high-speed buses, tilt sensors (in the Powerbooks), rapid sleep mode — few or none of these exist in the PC world, and I suspect any January Intel-based products will be too rushed to have this high level of hardware attention.

In fact, I'm scared it'll take years (or forever) for Apple to get its Intel machines in line, quality and feature-wise, with its PPC machines.

So i guess you discount the fact that OS X has been designed from the start to be cross-platform. Steve said all design features, were implemented only so long as they could run on both architectures. The only thing stopping Apple from doing this previously was a fast(pretty) emulation environment.

Once transitive came on board with their technology it was a wrap. Plus most of the things you speak of, have more to do with the profusion of different hardware architectures needing to be supported, then an actual inabilty to implement in x86 land. Not to mention the ineptitude of Microsoft. Just mho.

[CaptainHaddock]

So i guess you discount the fact that OS X has been designed from the start to be cross-platform.

Sure, Apple's been preparing their software for the new architecture for a long while, but there's no indication they did any Intel-centric hardware design till this year.

What I'm saying is, even if OS X runs top-notch, Apple's spent years and years designing and perfecting beautiful PPC-based hardware, and they've spent just a few months hurriedly shoving an Intel processor and commodity parts into a Mac form factor. The slick hardware-OS integration is a huge part of what makes Macs so nice, and I doubt the Intel hardware will work as well as the PPC hardware for years to come; maybe never. Tell me how many items in my checklist above you think would make it into an Intel iBook by January.

(I really, really hope Apple proves me wrong, but they seem a little more focused on cutting corners these days. Just look at the new iPods.)

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Nuks

So why are they moving to Intel? Better power management (meaning better battery life?)
Faster?
Cheaper?

I hope Lee Majors does a commercial for Apple.

"Better. Faster. Cheaper."

[Al G]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaddock

I'm still skeptical. Apple has achieved a very high level of finesse with its OS X / PPC / hardware integration — Open Firmware, Firewire target mode, Firewire boot mode, high-speed buses, tilt sensors (in the Powerbooks), rapid sleep mode — few or none of these exist in the PC world, and I suspect any January Intel-based products will be too rushed to have this high level of hardware attention.

In fact, I'm scared it'll take years (or forever) for Apple to get its Intel machines in line, quality and feature-wise, with its PPC machines.

Skepticism can be healthy. But it's still going to be Apple's world, just with Intel CPUs instead of PPC. The features you list like FW Target mode, Sudden Motion Sensor, etc., really have nothing to do with PPC.

[poppa kristof]

Basically for older Mac users who invested in a large amount of money on native OS X software after the switch will probably have to do it again. For people who started using the Mac in the past year, it might not be such a big deal to go Intel right away.
As far as Apple always making an X86 version of X, in a business sence it had to be done. Back in the X beta days Moto had problems making the G4, let alone faster and cheaper. Apple knew back then they needed a back up plan as in X86.

[wilsonng]

If the rumors hold true, PPC emulation with Rosetta will be pretty invisible much in the same way that Classic was working with most of the OS9 programs in emulation.

There are new rumors of AltiVec support in Rosetta so that will help many PPC programs. With a dual core chip, there should be a small performance hit but not one that should slow down your productivity.

So programs like Microsoft Office should still be usable under Rosetta. After all, how much speed do you need to type a letter?

But there will probably come a time where a new program will "require" a MacIntel.

[iomatic]

You've obviously never used Word.

[wilsonng]

awright..... bad example......Long live Word 5.1.

You're right. I still use the antiquated AppleWorks (despite some minor blemishes) because Word is still a behemoth. AppleWorks does almost everything I need. One of these days I'll switch to iLife.

I'm actually waiting for iLife 06 to see if there is a spreadsheet module added to it. Otherwise I'll stick around with Mariner Calc.

I have Word on my hard drive mostly to open other people's documents.

[pete]

Originally Posted by SEkker

Apple's done this kind of transition once before -- from 68k to PPC CPUs. And those revA machines worked fine.

If I remember correctly, the first generation of PPC powerbooks were pretty damn horrible: the 5300 and 190 series. I think both had repair extension program that lasted for 5 + years to cover all the problems. In fact Apple was so desperate to get them back that they offered substantial rebates ($600?) on new powerbooks so that people would send in their old POS 190s, thus taking them out of circulation and saving Apple lots on continued repair costs.

So, the transition was NOT smooth. I don't know if it was directly related to a the new processor and architecture, but those rev A were among the worse computers Apple ever produced.

[slugslugslug]

I dunno, Word is slower than a word processor oughtta be, but it's certainly usable. Of course, I cut my teeth on Word 6, which was insanely awkward. The interface has never gotten close to that horrible again, and I seem to remember the last two Classic versions being downright Snappy. Anyway, I imagine it'll be tolerable in Rosetta..

[iomatic]

Except for the font cache issue with Word saying every single font is corrupted, (I have to constantly go into /Library/Caches/com.apple.TS and delete my 501 folder, and re-login.) I haven't found a fix other than this. I've disabled all my fonts except for a few in Font Book. This is the only problem I have with this PowerBook… fixes would be appreciated.

OK back on topic--
Has anyone gotten any of the hardware working (FIreWire, iPod, etc.) with the 'test' Intel OS X installs?