Opinions, concerns, and whatnot about these new machines would be worthwhile to hear. I've been waiting for these things to finally come out, and it seems that the iBook line may not be too far behind (and thus, my first Mac purchase in half a decade).
I have some concerns with Apple's play method here. This new "MacBook" (hate the name.) is quite the professional-orientated laptop. Holding onto many of the features of the higher-end G4 PowerBooks, and brand new X1800 ATI graphics (Even on the PC-side, this is a screamer of a chipset). Unfortunately, their pro products, their video editing applications, not to mention the applications of others are not yet in Universal Binary format, or even native x86 binaries yet. This is a problem for individauls who want to use these Macs for high-performance work, and have to settle for emulation until their mostly-killer apps are ported. This would push potential buyers either to another market or down to the G4 PowerBooks. However, if Apple can pull off at least Universal binaries of their apps, and perhaps rally other developers to follow suit (they've been doing it like crazy on the ADC newsletters) by the time these things ship, it looks like all lights would be green then. The iMac concerns me to a lesser degree. Since the OS has been ported natively to the Yonah's they're based on, the average consumer for whom the iMac is targeted at wouldn't be concerned with such packages. Gamers may even be pleased by the bump in graphics there as well, but of course, their games have to be ported again.
Many of us have already delt with these problems before, back when Apple was moving from 680x0's to the PowerPC architecture. History apparently has come to repeat themselves. I'm wondering how Classic is going to be supported at this point in time, Rosetta may not cover emulating 9.2.2 and even further back, classic 68k apps. Granted, everyone should have moved up by now, but legacy is always a good thing to know you can rely on.
I feel though, this is a good move for Apple in the end. They're increasing performance and battery life in their laptops, and also desktops. They're also pushing breaking-technology as well which no one else in the PC industry even has their hands on yet, outside of a few laptop dealers, but even those machines were engineering samples. I do not believe this will help or hurt software development any, seeing as how most high-level language-based code needs only be tweaked to play nice with X, and you're good to go (I still feel Apple needs to work on XCode more). I like the idea of the power connector, and I know first-hand how socket-based AC adaptors can be at times, the tips wearing out, and people tripping over them ("Flying PowerBook Syndrome"). A nice feature, but a small one, nothing too remarkable, but welcome all the same. However, they need to fix that name, "MacBook" sounds... childish.
Then again, with these Intel Duo cores (Intel, you too! These names are horrible!), they can't exactly call it "PowerBook Duo", now can they? ;p
Though it probably will never be supported by Apple, Basilisk ought to port pretty easily now that OS X is running on x86, right?
BasiliskII already has a MacOS X port. I'm unsure if it has JIT support or not, however. Although, what it provides is less than perfect in support for some finicky games and old apps, but generally works. vMac handles the very old stuff. Still, this was one of the high points Apple held, ultimate legacy support on their part.
right, but that would be emulated twice...
It will need ported again.
who are currently at MacWorld, the new intel macs have no form of official support for classic. It looks like OS 9 support is coming to an end. Another odd thing is the fact that firewire 800 appears to be gone from both new units. Another thing to note that struck me as odd is this - the MacBook Pro uses an 85w power adapter. The 15 and 17 inch PowerBook G4's used 65w adapters. Despite the better performance per watt rating, the portables need more wattage. The new machines look promising, though the new naming for the portables is, well, less than stellar.
Keep in mind that the Powerbook Duo's (I refuse to call it the mac...book!) battery is 60 or 65w now, which would take more power from the adapter to let the computer charge and run at the same time. It's my opinion that the Duo will last longer when it's only running with one core and it will last slightly less when it's running both cores.
Dual-core configurations do not allow disabling of one core or the other in the PC-side of dual cores, and they certainly do not on the Mac side either. It's either both on, or the laptop is off.
But I can see the concern here. The PowerPC architecture scaled really well to being power-saving CPUs, but I fear that the dual Pentium M cores require both more core voltage and more watts to drive them *both*. Considering you're going from a one CPU to effectively two CPU situation, this is to be expected. Also, the DDR2, quad-pumped RAM and subsystem uses a bit more electricty due to the fact that it's working inbetween clock cycles like crazy. Apple may have managed to slim that down, no idea, they quote no battery life.
I do believe, however, on a core-vs-core basis between the Pentium M and the low-power G4's, the Pentium M's win on both Vcore, heat, wattage, and also performance per watt and clock cycle. Single-cored iBooks and the like, which are yet to seen, I imagine will have considerably longer batteries lives because of it.
Yowza! Anyone expect that?
Check out the clever and cool MacBook (gack!) power adapter attachment, hopefully that'll end broken power connection sockets for good.
How long until we see a clone running latest shipping Tiger? Howzabout we start a betting pool . . .
And finally (?), Apple is letting developers exchange their devkit Intel Macs for new Intel iMacs for no charge. Cool.
dan k
... where the %$^&# is my intel-equipped mini?
Helping them clear out inventory no doubt. Sigh...
-- Macinjosh
This will bring down the price of uesd powerbooks and the computers will be fast and the x86 relese of os x maybe hacked for pc.
As a graphic designer I will very shortly be in the market for a portable system for road and on-site work.
I have to question if the Macbook Pro is a good value for people like me at this point in time. I've got quite a bit of money already invested in PPC software (Adobe Creative Suite, Macromedia Studio MX, MS Office Mac, etc...
I suppose it depends on how efficiently that Rosetta code converter thing REALLY works. Even if Rosetta slows things down in an app like Photoshop by say 40-50% the base model would STILL represent a net gain in horsepower over the existing 15 inch Powerbook G4- a machine 4x as fast as the current powerbooks doing "native" tasks would most certainly still process data around 2x faster than the PB by my reckoning.
If Rosetta is really S--L--O--W it might be a better bargain to go with a refurb Powerbook G4, you can get one around $1300 or so.
Eventually we'll have to upgrade to native X86 / universal software anyway but I really don't want to spring for the cost of new upgrades so soon, I've just emptied my checkbook this time last year.
¡Aye Carrumba!
Think of it this way. Apple managed to completely redesign two motherboards, and one entire laptop enclosure to house completely new arcitectures. They had to redesign north/southbridges, they had to fine tune the OS for all the new hardware to implement, they had to redesign the entire bus for an Intel CPU and also to use DDR2 memory. They did this for TWO machines, and then redid the body for one of them (in a laptop form, no less).
And they did it in HOW long after announcing the switch to Intel CPUs?
That is some DAMN COMPLEX work there that they've done. It's quite an accomplishment that they put out. They've no doubt put massive amounts of energy, work, time, and money into making these things work. It doesn't make sense for them to put all that investment into a *marginally profitable device*. Maybe later down the line once they perfect these things, but right off the bat? Never.
These things take time, so sit tight. Apple is working full steam to pull off all these things. Don't say they didn't do good enough when they pulled off a pretty big feat.
Twas a two-second post/rant; but you're quite right, and I wholeheartedly agree they've done some amazing things.
Do not let my lust for the intel mini be misconstrued as lack of appreciation for what they did get out the door. Like the name or not, I still drooooooool over the Macbook.
(Though in retrospect, the way I wrote it sure seems pretty unappreciative. Muh bad.)
-- Macinjosh
well... i cant speak on the new machines... but OLDER rosetta version... running on the X86 version of 10.4.3, which i have been running on my Dell with a (single core) 2.4GHz Pentium 4 (with no SSE2 support, so my machine is already slightly crippled...) performed thusly:
Adobe CS2: most things running just slightly slower than my 1.42ghz G4
Garageband2 from iLife 05: no noticable difference...
Final Cut Pro5: just fine... until rendering.. eek!!
and, also good to note that my Dell is running DDR PC2700 ram and a FSB nowhere near as fast as the new machines, and i am running onboard intel graphics chipset....
so, my guess is that with the newly tweaked Rosetta in 10.4.4 and on Real hardware designed for it... that you probably would notice almost no difference running your current PPC apps on this system until they are ported to Universal Bins... and, NO CLASSIC SUPPORT AT ALL. but really... there is no need for classic in todays market anymore... is mostly just a novelty in my opinion (i am sure that MANY people will disagree with that opinon however )
...my 2 cents.
Bill
EDIT: Where the !@#$ is my new Front Row 2.0 with DVR and my new Mac Plasma?
Actually, just to be fair, part of the point of switching to Intel is they get *Intel* to do all the "nuts and bolts" engineering for them. I *guaruntee* you that they're using a "bog standard" Intel Mobile 945 motherboard chipset along with the Napa CPU. The hardware for the new machines is really, like it or not, just a packaging job. (The only unique bit is the Apple DRM/TPM chip for locking up OS X.)
Incedentally, I would bet a nickel that both the Mini and iBook will get the "Core Solo" single core CPU instead of the Core Duo. It'd seem sort of pointless for Apple to use Core Duo across the line, when having one or two cores will be a *great* way to distinguish between their Pro/Prosumer and entry-level lines.
--Peace
The pro apps run under Rosetta... but he says its still not quite ready or fast enough for pro use (at least, this is what I heard... I didn't watch the key note... hellish day yesterday with "Patch Tuesday" (though... I am happy to anounce that I won't be a Windows Admin for too much longer
).
As far as people complaining about their favorite boxes not "Intelized" yet... you have try to look at it all from Apple's perspective: "Just why did they update the machines that they did?":
1) the pro laptop line was desperately in need of hw updates... they really couldn't get away with out serious criticism without releaseing a new powerbook (funny... how everyone was misguided in their predictions about the most probable new machines being the "low end" models, the iBook and Mini).
2) the pro apps are not quite ready yet for Marklar... so they couldn't have updated their high end towers, because the software just isn't there yet (what is there? I posted this somewhere else, but may as well put it here, as it is interesting: MacIntel Resource Center && MacIntel Updates)
3) if they had updated their low end iBook, and, specifically, the Mini (well, lets say "released," because I happen to believe the hw is ready now), then they seriously would have compromised the sale of their current stock of these models.
Granted. I'm kind of sad about it though. I've got a reasonable new Powerbook, but I was hoping for a Mini update so I could have an Intel machine to use as a media server.
Maybe off topic, but do you think the camera in the new notebook is hard to aim?
Not that I will be buying one soon, but I was dissapointed in the lack of a 12" MacBook...
Though there is no way for me to know for sure, I think, more problematically, it is hard not to aim. I couldn't tell from the pictures if its the only way to determine that it is live... but that little indicator light is small... and what happens if it breaks? For enterprise, its a nice doodad... but speaking stricktly from a consumer standpoint, I'd almost prefer that it was an optional addition altogether.
Good point, that's quite likely, really. I'd like to see what else they've got inside, but unfortunatley Apple doesn't like to readily give specs like these away. We shall wait until the Service Manual PDF leaks, or until someone (there's always someone) rips open one of the poor things.
As for that Infineon (I think) chip, I so do loathe DRMs. If I paid for the computer, I should be allowed to do with it what I want to do with it inside the boundries of the law. But I guess it works out in the end, considering I can have a Tri-Booting Apple laptop with MacOS X, Linux (Gentoo), and Windows XP.
so to the people who have X86 tiger on their home PC, hows it run? does rosetta run almost all the PPC software ok? im really curious. wouldnt mind having OSX on a pc myself....
No, no. The power scaling automatically turns core 2 off completely when it's not being used. The DDR2 memory isn't new, either, and it's actually lower power than DDR. I do, however, agree that single cored MacBooks will have a longer battery life.
(1) PPC apps and Rosetta:
Apple claims an average of 70% native speed. Let's say that's "optimistic" and the real number is 60%. Apple also claims MacBook Pro is 4-5X faster than Powerbook G4, which holds true for CPU and system bus. Factoring in the fact that the HD is the same speed as before, let's say real-world improvement is, on average, 2.5X. So, 2.5X times 60% equals 1.5X - that means your "typical" PPC app, running under Rosetta on the MacBook Pro, is 50% faster than the same app running natively on a Powerbook G4. So I would say that for all but the most disk-intensive tasks, Rosetta will be more than fine compared to any G4-based system. For hard-core work, of course, one still would want a Power Mac G5, for the time being.
(2) Which Macs went Intel first:
I too was initially puzzled at this - why no Intel Mac mini or iBook? Then I realized - if you had a Mac mini faster than an iMac, everyone would run out and buy $500 minis and $400 20" LCD displays, and iMac G5 sales would fall off a cliff. Ditto with iBooks - Powerbook sales would fall off a cliff, and in that case so would iBook sales, because many, many people would be holding off on either, instead waiting for a Mac laptop that had both an Intel CPU and a large widescreen display.
(3) Features on the MacBook Pro:
I agree it's strange to have no FW800 - but Apple is not cheap or stupid (whatever else they are). So there must be some notion that the FW800 market is
small in general, (b) really small specifically among laptop customers, (c) adequately served by expansion "express cards" that will provide FW800. On the inclusion of a 4X (as opposed to 8X) DL DVD drive, that is indeed a total mystery. AFAIK 8X drives are just about as cheap, very quiet, low-power, etc. I don't get it. (Of course, I don't really care, either, but I guess some folks do care.) In general, though, I think this is an amazing machine - a PB G4 with a slightly larger and much brighter screen, much faster CPU, built-in webcam, IR sensor with remote, for the same price.
(4) Power consumption:
My understanding - which could indeed be wrong - is that the 85W AC adapter is necessary to charge the new, higher-capacity battery, and I presume the new battery is there primarily to power the brighter backlight rather than the CPU. Consider: Jobs said the Intel Core Duo is 4-5X as fast as the G4, and has a performance-per-watt ratio 4X that of the G4. Put those together and the Core Duo's likely power consumption is about the same as the G4's.
Matt
here:
http://www.betanews.com/article/XP_Wont_Run_on_Intel_MacBook_iMac/1137003330
key points:
* Intel Macs won't be able to boot Windows
* The new Intel Macs are only 32-bit
The new BIOS is a bit of a surprise. That explains why Apple is trading in all the Developer Kit systems for iMacs. Something tells me that the Devkit 10.4.3 version of Tiger is going to be the *last* version that boots on classic AT BIOSes.
As for being only 32 bit that's not a surprise. Intel's been saying for a long time that Napa wouldn't be 64 bit. It does make one wonder whether Apple's going to "stoop" to using a Netburst (Pentium 4)-based CPU in their first Power Mac replacement, or if they're going to hold out for Napa's successor. Or do neither, and just conveniently forget that 64-bit thing happened for a little while.
--PEace
Merom, which is due in Q2/Q2 2006, will feature 64-bit and significantly improved performance due to the new architecture (no netburst!). It is also the basis for Intel's upcoming mobile, desktop, and server/workstation processors.
According to Wikipedia:
and
If this is the case and Apple chooses to implement EFI fully then, as it says, OS compatability issues should be minimum. And if it _is_ a problem, then I'm sure enterprising hackers will be able to extend EFI to the point that it emulates enough of a BIOS to run Windows.
Also worth of note is the MacWine project, and the announcement that CrossoverOffice has been/is being ported to Mac OS x86
It also strikes me that EFI could be an effective tool for Apple locking OS X onto macs. What would be better to have than a small storage module on the motherboard that has to have unique hashes to identify the computer as a mac in order for firmware to start?
Bad, bad math. The specific wording is "UP TO four times as fast". For most apps, it looks more like two times as fast. Also, I've never trusted Apple's benchmarks. Apparently the one they're using now to compare the new 'Books to the old ones it highly Intel optimised.
Actually, they will...just not Windows XP. XP doesn't support EFI, so unless someone comes out with a clever hack for it, you'll have to wait for Windows Vista in order to install Windows on one of the new Macs (Vista will support EFI).
What I'd like to know is just how locked-down the TPM chip is on the new machines, and how long it will take hackers to get the shipping version of OS X for Intel working on standard PCs.
What happened:
PowerBook G4 became MacBook Pro
iMac G5 became iMac
My Predictions:
PowerMac G5 becomes Mac Pro
iBook G4 becomes iBook
Mac mini stays Mac mini
They release MacBook mini keeping with the naming scheme
-Possibly Tablet or Newton like
They Release a Thirtieth Anniversery Apple Computer which boggles our minds which could possibly be a partnership with Google on their Google Computer that has been rumored.
64-bit intel transition begins next Macworld
iPods get wifi and bluetooth for buying stuff off music store anywhere
iPod Pro released with video/still camera built in
What I read (don't ask me to site it because I have no idea where it came from) today was that VIsta doesn't support EFI. Whether it will remains to be seen, but I think that is a safe assumption. Did you happen to remember where you got your info?
/edit/
Interesting... from forums in OSX86Project:
Oh, is it prediction time already? I love these!
Powermac G5 becomes Mac Pro
iBook becomes MacBook
Mac mini branches off into 2 lines: a VIIV-powered DVR-like Mac mini-- that doesn't get TV via cable input, but through streaming internet HDTV, and a $400 single core machine
A 13" widescreen Powerbook Duo is announced with the 1.6ghz processors only. No more 17". Unlocked UMTS/HSDPA modem in every Powerbook Duo.
64-bit intels come as soon as possible, which is Q2-Q3 2006.
iPod grows into a $150 1gb nano with the iPod Shuffle dropped completely, the iPod at $299 features bluetooth for pausing music when a call comes in. Oh, one more thing: Apple becomes an MVNO with Cingular with a nationwide UMTS/HSDPA network for .mac and iTunes media store access on a Symbian-powered smartphone that has Wifi and Bluetooth. And, yes, it has a 2MP camera.
A good prediction (The I infront of everything was cool but old)
the only bad part of that is the ipod part (I just got my video)
lol
Link Here
Pretty much what's been said above already; that if the EFI bios emulation layer is present in the MacTels, they may yet be able to boot into Windows.
that if the EFI bios emulation layer is present in the MacTels, they may yet be able to boot into Windows.
emulation layer? Is that what backwards compatible means in regards to EFI being backwards compatible with BIOS?
I just went to a local apple dealer around here, and he confirmed it: no classic support on the intel macs. He did say however, that the open source community has started working on emulators to run classic on the intel macs.
Hmm... I knew there wasn't support... but I thought that the Classic Environment would work under Rosetta (but it hadn't occurred to me that the entire Classic Environment wasn't included in the new installations). Maybe some hacker will distill the stuff needed from the PPC OS X...
At least, however, for the time being, there is Basilisk II. Its opensource, right? so... hypothetically, it could be compiled for the new machines?
see also:
the Version Tracker page and
a HowTo
Yes, which means that Apple has no reason at all to include said BIOS compatability layer due to the fact that OS X wasn't ever made for working with BIOS anyway!
But... its like firmware, right? PC users upgrade/flash their BIOS, right? So... its reasonable to assume that EFI will be similar in that respect... so maybe EFI can be flashed to include the BIOS compatibility layer.
Unless a part of the TCM chip houses a checksum or signature of the EFI. Then you'd have to have the "Apple Keys" to sign the FW image and make it "authorized" to boot the system.
BIOS has to be built more or less custom for each motherboard. Apple doesn't have any reason to waste their time building it in.
I heard from one of the better-known Mac Rags that the real-world speed differences between the Intel and PPC Macs are actually around 10-25%, when equipped with similar disks, memory, graphics, etc. I can't remember where I read it, although it was linked from http://www.theregister.co.uk
Cheers,
The Czar
could it have been
MacWorld?
well... their claims have sorta been debunked
at least for the new iMac... it screams
From TFA
I think that last part about the Intel vs power name thing sounds plausible. If PPC has been the main desktop competition and even a partial server chip contender then I'd agree that that might be a big reason for the name change.
Going slighly OT here, but there has been some talk about current gen machines not getting OS X support past 10.5...Would this be true? I mean, for most other machines, the SSW support goes for years (my clamshell shipped w/8.6, and went through 9.1,9.2,10.1-10.3)In that case it would be a wiser choice to wait for the PB's to turn into "Macbook Pro's", since current HW would only lose support maybe after 1 yr. or so (?)...which has me in a self debate here, whether I should wait for Intels or buy a PB now, can anyone clear me on this?
Danny
OS X will probably support both Intel and PowerPC with any release in the next 4 years. After that, I think Apple might develop an entirely new OS for an entirely new hardware platform, but that's just idle speculation!
While were on topic, I was thinking about what procs. apple would use for iBooks and minis, and it ocurred to me that the MacBook Pro's and iMacs can have the Core Duos, while the minis and ibooks can have the Pentium M...Also, on a side note, I would suggest apple started putting TV tuners in the minis, and maybe even the iBooks,to complement the FrontRow features, and maybe include at least a PCMCIA slot on iBooks from now on? (I mean since the macbooks have Expresscard slots now)
Intel has the successor to the Pentium M as the Core Solo.