# Mac mini the first to go Intel?



## georgelien (Jul 22, 2005)

I think so.

What's your take?


----------



## Mikuro (Jul 22, 2005)

I don't think they'll do it one single line at a time. I think it's more likely that they'll move 2-4 lines first, and then the rest later.

However, if they do just do one line to start with, I doubt it will be the Mini, because that would create a discrepency in their lineup. Right now, the Mini is essentially an eMac without a monitor (although the eMac has been upgraded since the Mini's introduction, so now it has a more powerful graphics card). If they moved only the Mini, where would that leave the eMac? It would be more expensive, yet weaker (or at the very least seemingly less advanced). That wouldn't be good.

If they started with only one line, it would have to be the PowerBooks. That's the only one they could change alone without casting a serious shadow on their other products. They couldn't change the iBook without changing the PowerBook, because it just wouldn't do to have the consumer model use a more advanced chip than the pro model.

Personally, I expect to see both the PowerBook and iBook to be updated simultaneously, probably in mid-2006, but possibly earlier. Then I expect to see the Mini and eMac follow shortly, the iMac near the beginning of 2007, and the Power Mac in mid-2007, in keeping with Apple's aim to complete the transition in two years.

Just my guesses.


----------



## RGrphc2 (Jul 22, 2005)

i see this happening :

2006 - Mac Mini, eMac, iBook (late 2006)
2007 - Powerbook (early 2007/late 2006), iMac, Powermac 

not giving the months, in fear of being flamed...


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Jul 22, 2005)

Jobs said in the Keynote, IIRC, that the mini and iBooks would be the absolute first to go Intel-based.


----------



## Shookster (Jul 22, 2005)

ElDiabloConCaca said:
			
		

> Jobs said in the Keynote, IIRC, that the mini and iBooks would be the absolute first to go Intel-based.



Why the lower-end products first?


----------



## JetwingX (Jul 22, 2005)

longer the wait, the better the processors


----------



## Captain Code (Jul 22, 2005)

Shookster said:
			
		

> Why the lower-end products first?



iBooks, Powerbooks and the Mini all lag behind PCs in performance, while the desktop running G5s does not really lag yet.  This is why they would upgrade those ones first.


----------



## fryke (Jul 22, 2005)

Jobs did _not_ say which products would get the intel processors first at WWDC. The Mac mini and the iBook were _assumed_ to be the first products. Apple, btw., has in the past done strange things like updating the iBooks to levels that rivalled the PowerBooks - and the PowerBooks took _months_ before widening the gap again, so the eMac is probably the least of Apple's problems, should they update the mini first (it'd give them more Mac mini sales, less eMac sales, what Apple really cares about is sold units as well as profits, and the profit per eMac isn't necessarily _that_ much higher than a mini's...).


----------



## RacerX (Jul 22, 2005)

Well, the reason I would guess that the Minis and the iBooks are going to go Intel first is that I haven't seen anything from Intel that would rival the G5 line currently.

And unless native software is going to be available at the release of the first Intel based Macs, I highly doubt that pros are going to be the first to transition. Intel would need a spectacular new processor to run something like Photoshop in Rosetta at speeds similar to Photoshop on a G5.

Besides, I fully expect Apple to continue selling PowerPC based Macs will into 2009 (along the same lines as how they kept selling Mac OS 9 bootable Macs long after the main lines had all gone Mac OS X only).

So I expect the following _waves_ of transition:Mac Mini, iBook
iMac, PowerBook
PowerMac​And if there is still a market out there for eMacs, I would guess they'll switch around the same time as the PowerMacs.


----------



## georgelien (Jul 22, 2005)

I like this coversation we are having.

Please keep it going.

Any educated guess is a good guess.

Now I wonder whether Apple would introduce any Intel-inside machines next week when it updates the iBook and the Mac mini?


----------



## serpicolugnut (Jul 22, 2005)

While anything is possible, I doubt that Apple will sell PPC Macs one day longer than they need to. Although demand could extend the availability of PPC Macs past the 2007 mark, I don't see it happening. By the end 2007, 3/4's of the Mac line will be Intel, and the transition will be mostly complete as far as software goes. 

It does make sense for the Mini and iBooks to go first. Remember, Jobs said the first Intel Macs will be showing up around June 2006. This is traditionally the time that Apple refreshes it's education offerings, in time for the back to school buy.

I see the iBooks, Powerbooks and minis going first before the end of 2006. iMacs will go probably in late 2006/early 2007, and the Power Macs will go sometime in 2007. The xServe will probable be the last to go. It's design usually incorporates some of the lessons learned by designing the Power Mac, so I expect it will be post Power Mac. 

As for the eMac, I don't really see the purpose for this machine now that the mini exists. It costs alot for Apple to produce (because it's the only CRT in the lineup, Apple doesn't get the big quantity discounts it got for the CRTs when they were more of their business), and it is expensive to ship. The only thing that will keep the eMac in the lineup is anemic sales of the mini, which seems to be doing quite well, for now.

The only problem with the elimination of the eMac at the hands of the mini is this: Schools. The mini, while cheaper and more attractive to schools because they can reuse their CRT monitors and kb/mice, is harder to secure from theft. You can lock it down, but it takes about 5 seconds to use a bic pen to break most of these locks. The eMac, on the other hand, is much harder to stick in your backpack and walk out of the school with.... ;-)


----------



## TWRayer (Jul 22, 2005)

The low end will be the first to go Intel.  This is because of the low performance of the G4 based Macs (mini, iBook, eMac) and the fact that the G4 is 32bit, like the P4.   Putting in a 3.x GHz Pentium4 will be a huge speed increase for these machines.   Also, look at the front side bus;  the G4 is currently stuck at 167 MHz.    Putting in a Pentium 4 will increase this to at least 533MHz and maybe faster.   The FSB has a huge effect on the 'snappyness' of OSX.

This will give Apple and Intel further time to develop a 64bit processor (Itanium 2?) for the Powerbook/PowerMac/xServe lines.

I personally can't wait.


----------



## Macaholic G5 (Jul 22, 2005)

Mac mini and iBook will likely be first built around the Pentium M (Dothan).  I've built my own desktop using the Dothan processor and it is a very quiet, low heat, powerful, green machine.  Got the watt meter readings if anyone is interested.    Followed shortly after that would be the PowerBook line using Pentium M Dual Core (Yonah).  A speedy, low heat, dual core processing dream!  Then move on to the iMac and PowerMac lines.  Just my thoughts.


----------



## fryke (Jul 23, 2005)

georgelien said:
			
		

> Now I wonder whether Apple would introduce any Intel-inside machines next week when it updates the iBook and the Mac mini?



No, it's not June 2006 yet, georgelien.


----------



## Decado (Jul 23, 2005)

jobs didnt say they would introduce them in june 2006, he said they would be in the market then. so they would be if they started selling them next week 

My take: Intel demonstrated a couple of months ago (mars?) a Mini-computer based around one of their chips (and every apple-loyal man woman and monkey shouted that it was a stinkin' copy). It did look quite a bit like the mini and Jonathan Ive could have fixed the rest while blindfolded if he wanted to.

I think the mac mini will be updated with an intel on macworldSF 06, and preorders will be taken at that time on at least one laptop model that will be intel. as fryke said; apple wouldnt care much if the cheapest or the most expensive computer sold most, jst as long as they make as much money (i.e the cheaper one being cheaper to make so the profit is the same).

but i know nooothing...


----------



## Decado (Jul 23, 2005)

the articel i was looking for earlier of anyone is interested in the intel copy:

http://www.engadget.com/entry/1234000577045099/


----------



## fryke (Jul 23, 2005)

Whether he said "in the market" or "introduce": Don't believe Steve Jobs will bring out an intel Mac _before_ 2006. It was quite clear that the year before June 2006 would be the developers' chance (WWDC is a developer conference after all) to adopt the new platform, not the users'. Believing that early next week we'd see an intel Mac mini is naïve to say the least.


----------



## georgelien (Jul 23, 2005)

fryke said:
			
		

> Whether he said "in the market" or "introduce": Don't believe Steve Jobs will bring out an intel Mac _before_ 2006. It was quite clear that the year before June 2006 would be the developers' chance (WWDC is a developer conference after all) to adopt the new platform, not the users'. Believing that early next week we'd see an intel Mac mini is naïve to say the least.



I think you're right, fryke.

Steve really threw me off when he confirm the rumor that the Mac is going Intel.

Well, the technology is definitely here.

But, you're right, we're still waiting for the software.

Still, it will be kind of cool if Apple introduces the Mac mini as the first Intel-inside machine.


----------



## RacerX (Jul 23, 2005)

fryke said:
			
		

> Believing that early next week we'd see an intel Mac mini is naïve to say the least.


And very unrealistic... 

Apple's hardware division was only made aware of this around the same time the rest of us were. They are currently hard at work designing what the new systems are going to be. After that (about the time that they go into production) the developer documentation on the new hardware will be released so third party hardware makers can evaluate the new hardware against their current designs and supporting software.

In most ways, Apple has made the software developers lives much easier than it was even back in the Rhapsody days (even Carbon developers shouldn't really need a year... though I doubt that larger developers are going to change any of the current upgrade schedules for this). So really, the year is to give parts of Apple time to adapt. 

And the two years for the transition is to give Intel time for their road map to mature and start baring fruit... in our case, _apples_. 

 

Intel Macs are going to come when they come... and then they'll be here. But as it stands currently, Apple is a PowerPC based computer maker and they have some cool stuff that we can still look forward to long before the Intel switch is started.


----------



## georgelien (Jul 23, 2005)

All I can say is: Ready To Be Surprised.

No, I do not have any tip from an insider.

I just think the sooner Apple complete the transition, the more Macintosh computers it will sell.

Many people may pend their orders to see what Apple has to offer with the new Intel-based Macintoshes.

In short, I have prepared myself, so I wouldn't be surprised if the new Mac(s) next week do(es) come with Intel processor(s) inside.

As Decado's hyperlink reminds us, AOpen already produced a mini PC with similar form factor as the Mac mini at this year's Computex.  I  checked it out while I was there, and thought--"Damn, this is a Mac mini with Intel processor and chipset inside."

However, as many of you reminded me that, software could remain the factor that Apple will keep next week's Macs Power PC-based computers.

We'll just have to wait and see.

Boy, am I excited.


----------



## RacerX (Jul 24, 2005)

georgelien said:
			
		

> As Decado's hyperlink reminds us, AOpen already produced a mini PC with similar form factor as the Mac mini at this year's Computex.  I  checked it out while I was there, and thought--"Damn, this is a Mac mini with Intel processor and chipset inside."


Unless Apple is giving up the hardware business (not going to happen) this Mini _look-a-like_ means absolutely nothing.

Apple has always designed their own systems... no matter what processor they used. Why would they stop doing this now?

More importantly, if they _settle_ for making standard PCs, then Mac OS X is going to be easily hacked to run on non-Apple hardware.

Apple is designing their own logicboards just like they have done with 68k and PowerPC systems in the past. Moving to Intel processors isn't going to change that... it is actually going to reinforce Apple's practice of it.

People should take note that the developer kit systems were put together by the operating system team without the hardware division knowing anything about the Intel stuff. Apple is not only designing completely new systems, they are going to need the time to port Mac OS X to that new hardware (and get third party hardware developers up to speed). And the single most important part of any system is the logicboard (it is how all the other parts connect together to make a computer), and that is what is currently under development at Apple.



Of course, if ignoring the realities of hardware design is the only way to maintain the _fantasy_ that _Apple is going to release Intel hardware next week_ for the next year, then do what you must.


----------



## georgelien (Jul 24, 2005)

RacerX said:
			
		

> Unless Apple is giving up the hardware business (not going to happen) this Mini _look-a-like_ means absolutely nothing.
> 
> Apple has always designed their own systems... no matter what processor they used. Why would they stop doing this now?
> 
> ...




Thanks for the information, RacerX.  I guess I just have a lot of wishful thinking in my head.

That's all.

You guys are probably right--expecting Apple to introduce Intel-based processors next week are just long shot.

Still, they will all be changed sooner or later, right?

I'm just hoping it's sooner rather than later.


----------



## Lt Major Burns (Jul 24, 2005)

the eMac does have a purpose - it's the cheapest way to get a decent mac in one box. especially for education it's brilliant. it's all in one design is the ace card it holds over the mini. the mini, for all it's 'sexy' curves, looks ugly with all the non standard peripherals coming ut the back of it, and is impractical for the classroom in this way, with meddling kids. the eMac is much more elegant. i do agree however, with the CRT issue. i say an LCD emac. if the iMac is the ultimate LCD consumer machine (G5, 20" high-res LCD decent graphics etc) then the emac should be the cheapest possible way for apple to do an all in one LCD. 17" LCDs are less than £170 now, and 15" are even less than £100, but i don't see them going backwards in screen size. the need to comapct it as much as the iMac is unnessessary, although with a cooler chip, it could be done anyway.

I say:

iBook/PowerBook (these are the oldest of the product lines, and definately look like they are showing their age compared with the rest of the lines)

Mac Mini/eMac

iMac

PowerMac


----------



## boyfarrell (Jul 24, 2005)

PowerMac will be the first to change, as it is the flag ship model. But only if there is a 64-bit Intel otherwise it will be the PowerBook. Jobs will unveil either or in June 2006.

We have all been complaining about the Apple mobile line, but with new PPC processors being twice as energy efficient as current ones it will probably be possible to get them in a laptop (as discussed here before). So....

December 2005 - PowerBook - New low power PPC (if available then??)

June 2006 - PowerMac - Intel 

August 2006 - iBook & PowerBook - Low power PPC introduction in iBook (and spec boosts for the PowerBook)

December 2006 - PowerBook - Intel (and spec boost on PowerPC)

June 2007 - iBook and iMac - Intel

December 2008 - Servers - Intel

(I have left out the MacMini and the eMac but I guess they would mirror the iBook, on a delayed schedule?)

The above relies on the new PowerPC cheap to extend the life time of the mobile rang. If IBM can't get them out for December 2006 the plan will be a little different.

Ialso agree that the eMac is great for schools!


----------



## boyfarrell (Jul 24, 2005)

December 2006 should read '...spec boost on the PowerMac...'


----------



## fryke (Jul 24, 2005)

Then use the edit button instead of adding a post?


----------



## georgelien (Jul 27, 2005)

No, Intel Macs yet.

But I'm still betting on the Mac mini to be the first to change.

^_^


----------



## Carlo (Aug 10, 2005)

I was chatting to the guys and girls at my local apple centre who suggested we will see a g5 mac before the intel switch. That would change the dynamics of the argument alot (re: need for faster laptops etc etc).

They also suggested that apple is saying they will announce intel line around june 2006 but we wont see machines on sale until closer to december. I dont think any of us will be sporting a new intel mac until late q4 2006 or more likely 2007.

I would suggest that the flagship machines will move across pritty quick. However it would not be at all hard for apple to move the ibook, emac and mac mini over as they are not work horses. Just simple machines...

I think they will work on something special for the new powermac and powerbook. For all we know it will use a new intel cpu that we have yet to hear about. The mac mini's, ibooks and emacs could use normal p4 cpus.


----------



## georgelien (Aug 10, 2005)

Carlo said:
			
		

> I was chatting to the guys and girls at my local apple centre who suggested we will see a g5 mac before the intel switch. That would change the dynamics of the argument alot (re: need for faster laptops etc etc).
> 
> They also suggested that apple is saying they will announce intel line around june 2006 but we wont see machines on sale until closer to december. I dont think any of us will be sporting a new intel mac until late q4 2006 or more likely 2007.
> 
> ...



While the latest iBook G4s might be good enough for the recent back-to-school sale, Apple can expect a relatively weak sales for this Thanksgiving and Christmas unless new PowerBooks could be introduced with much powerful processors and graphic cards.

I don't believe that Apple is "behind" with its hardware development. I belive we will see new Intel-based Mac(s) at next year's MacWorld Expo San Francisco. And the Mac minis will be the first to be updated since the new Mac minis were only upgraded, not updated, this time around.


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Aug 10, 2005)

Carlo said:
			
		

> I was chatting to the guys and girls at my local apple centre who suggested *we will see a g5 mac before the intel switch.*


We already have two G5 Macs.  iMac and PowerMac... am I not understanding correctly?


----------



## fryke (Aug 10, 2005)

He meant a portable, I'm guessing from his text.


----------



## georgelien (Aug 10, 2005)

fryke said:
			
		

> He meant a portable, I'm guessing from his text.



A G5 laptop, really?  I guess DigiTime is right then, huh?

Personally, I doubt we will see a portable G5.

But if there were a G5 laptop, it most likely would be a PowerBook, no iBook G5 perviously reported by DigiTimes.


----------



## RGrphc2 (Aug 10, 2005)

georgelien said:
			
		

> A G5 laptop, really?  I guess DigiTime is right then, huh?
> 
> Personally, I doubt we will see a portable G5.
> 
> But if there were a G5 laptop, it most likely would be a PowerBook, no iBook G5 perviously reported by DigiTimes.



Remeber that 2.5 Ghz Dual-Core G5 chip announced by IBM a few weeks ago???  That processor might see the PB G5 or a "low-end" Powermac


----------



## Carlo (Aug 11, 2005)

fryke said:
			
		

> He meant a portable, I'm guessing from his text.




Sorry yes thats exactly what I was refering to.. A portable g5 powermac. I would not be surprised if this happens at all either. No doubt apple engineers have been working on a g5 powered laptop for a while. Now that IBM has a low"er" powered chip I dont see it as being too hard for apple to implement.

I have no doubt that we will see products introduced at Mac World SF. 

I suppose another thing is to look at what products are "easy" to manufacture.

Macmini & emac would not be too hard. They would not have to be massive power houses.

PowerMac replacements would have to be well engineered but they are not reinventing the wheel here.

The laptops would be their "trickier" product. But apple have always done well in this area.

so my suggestion is 
1. Mac Mini / emac
2. PowerMac
3. Laptops....

but.. until they are released its all up in the air. How many times has apple done the opposite of what we all thought.

I was surprised how much my local apple centre (which is not affiliated with apple, australia has no itunes music store nor offical apple centres) has been told about the switch. They appear to have been getting updates since the switch was announced.

so I suppose keep your ears to the ground (or channel partners) and see what happens.


----------



## georgelien (Aug 30, 2005)

Latest news from our friend. . .

http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=1123


----------



## fryke (Aug 30, 2005)

That's from June. what do you mean by "friend"?


----------



## georgelien (Aug 30, 2005)

fryke said:
			
		

> That's from June. what do you mean by "friend"?



That's from June?

Ooops, you're right.

Sorry about, it was late in Taiwan when I posted it.

I consider anyone providing important information a "friend" in the Mac news world.


----------



## fryke (Aug 31, 2005)

Ah, okay.


----------



## georgelien (Nov 7, 2005)

Apple Could Unveil Intel-Based Mac Mini In January

"[T]he company may be ready to launch lower-end Intel (nasdaq: INTC - news - people )-based Macs earlier than its original June 2006 target, with the possibility of an Intel-based Mac Mini at Macworld."

http://www.forbes.com/markets/2005/11/07/apple-intel-video-ipod-1107markets03.html?partner=yahootix


----------



## RGrphc2 (Nov 7, 2005)

But i thought the Yonah, Woodcrest and Merom chips weren't ready till mid next year.

Keep in mind what Jobs said at the keynote, or what he didn't say : "Pentium" not once other than his demo machine did he mention it.  Even with the news of the switch coming sooner that expected i still might get my girlfirend a Mini to replace her adware & spyware infected pc for christmas


----------



## georgelien (Nov 7, 2005)

RGrphc2 said:
			
		

> But i thought the Yonah, Woodcrest and Merom chips weren't ready till mid next year.




Yonah should be inside many high-end portable products by the 1st half of 2006.

Some Yonah processors had already been found in compact form factor Entertainment PCs.

http://www.ecs.com.tw/ECSWeb/NewsRoom/NewsDetail.aspx?NewsID=370&MENUID=15&LanID=0


----------



## texanpenguin (Nov 8, 2005)

Personally, I'd expect the high-end machines to go to Intel first.

This means Jobs will get his 3GHz Power Mac, people will have a next-generation PowerBook, and it will finally separate the two markets again.

Then, shortly after, the pro line would be upgraded and the consumer range would go Intel.


----------



## lurk (Nov 8, 2005)

The biggest problem with that is Intel cannot compete with the high end PowerPCs in the PowerMacs yet.  They will be the last to switch not the first.  Now the powerbooks...


----------



## maz94protege (Nov 8, 2005)

does this mean lower priced Macs? or Less productive Macs? i know the intel procesors are good. just why not AMD? i overall like AMD better, I guess ill have to wait and see the compatibility!


----------



## gerbick (Nov 8, 2005)

lurk said:
			
		

> The biggest problem with that is Intel cannot compete with the high end PowerPCs in the PowerMacs yet.  They will be the last to switch not the first.  Now the powerbooks...


Why can't they compete?  I mean... Steve Jobs chose them.


----------



## Mikuro (Nov 8, 2005)

gerbick said:
			
		

> Why can't they compete?  I mean... Steve Jobs chose them.


Steve Jobs chose them for 2+ years down the line. He never said anything about Intel's offerings besting the G5 any sooner than that.

The general assumption has been that the Power Mac will be the last to make the move. The G5 is not currently lacking (the G4 is), so there's really no need to replace it quickly. Also, the Power Macs are professional systems, and professionals can't afford to be guinea pigs. It will take time for pro apps to be ported to Intel Macs, and until that happens, the PPC machines will be MUCH faster. This doesn't matter much to average consumers, but it makes all the difference in the world for most people who'd be in the market for a Power Mac.

Of course, this is all just speculation. Apple has never said anything definitive. All they said is that the transition should start in mid-2006 at the latest, and end in mid-2007 at the latest.


----------



## lurk (Nov 8, 2005)

The current big problems are that the 64 bit support is not up to snuff compare them to Opterons if you want more of an apples to apples comparison.  Look at the new quad powermac and then try to spec out an intel machine to match, it ain't gonna happen.  Now once Intel puts the current netburst architecture behind them things will look up.  

I just cannot see them moving back to 32bits in the high end machines ever.  Now a 32 bit powerbook, that might be more palatable although I would like to have a 64 bit machine there if only to separate it from the lesser machines.


----------



## georgelien (Nov 8, 2005)

maz94protege said:
			
		

> does this mean lower priced Macs? or Less productive Macs? i know the intel procesors are good. just why not AMD? i overall like AMD better, I guess ill have to wait and see the compatibility!



In short, AMD mobile solutions is yet at par with Intel mobile solutions in terms of power consumption-performance ratio.

Notebook computers using Intel solutions with Centrino technology have longer battery life than the current AMD solutions.

I too love AMD processors--I use them to build desktop Win PCs--but when it comes to mobile solutions, AMD is still a child that only recently broke into the mobile market.

I look forward to its next generation mobile solutions, but for now, we must give it up for Intel.

That doesn't mean the PowerPC platform is dead though.

I, for one, am getting the new 15-inch PowerBook G4 because I believe it will last me three years before switching to an "Intel Inside" Mac.


----------



## georgelien (Nov 8, 2005)

Mikuro said:
			
		

> Steve Jobs chose them for 2+ years down the line. He never said anything about Intel's offerings besting the G5 any sooner than that.
> 
> The general assumption has been that the Power Mac will be the last to make the move. The G5 is not currently lacking (the G4 is), so there's really no need to replace it quickly. Also, the Power Macs are professional systems, and professionals can't afford to be guinea pigs. It will take time for pro apps to be ported to Intel Macs, and until that happens, the PPC machines will be MUCH faster. This doesn't matter much to average consumers, but it makes all the difference in the world for most people who'd be in the market for a Power Mac.
> 
> Of course, this is all just speculation. Apple has never said anything definitive. All they said is that the transition should start in mid-2006 at the latest, and end in mid-2007 at the latest.




Here, here!

I couldn't have said it better, myself.


----------



## gwynarion (Nov 12, 2005)

I've just finished reading through this thread and took note of some comments concerning the eMac and educational computer purchasers.  I know the eMac was created largely at the insistence of educational customers, but I think priorities are shifting within the sector itself.  My mother works in a elementary school (K-8) which has had Apples and Macs for many years.  What I have heard from her over the last year or two is that they are getting away from having a lab full of CRT iMacs and eMacs and moving toward mobile "labs" made up of iBooks.  This leads me to question whether we will see the eMac transitioned to an Intel configuration or whether it will be quietly EOL'd in a year or two.


----------



## kainjow (Nov 12, 2005)

Well, it looks now that it may be the iMac and the PowerBook to get Intel first:


> Surprisingly, the most reliable information indicates that the iMac and PowerBook -- two of the company's most recently revised Mac offerings -- are targeted to be the first two Mac models to receive Intel processors in January.


link


----------



## RGrphc2 (Nov 12, 2005)

kainjow said:
			
		

> The 15-inch Intel PowerBook has been described by reliable sources as looking very similar to the company's current offering, but 20- to 25-percent thinner.




wow...and i thought they couldnt get any thinner


----------



## fryke (Nov 13, 2005)

I wish they'd get _lighter_. The PowerBooks are heavy beasts compared to some Wintel notebooks. But I guess it's not really the processor that gives that weight...

(btw.: that's "hear, hear!", not "here, here!". )


----------



## gwynarion (Nov 14, 2005)

Are they really that much heavier than comparably equipped Wintel laptops?  In my work I have to talk about Macs a lot and I've had to compare them to a fair number of Wintel laptops.  All the times I've compared the PowerBooks to PCs with the same features the PCs have been a good bit heavier.


----------



## Mikuro (Nov 14, 2005)

I think the problem is that Apple doesn't offer any laptops with the combination of features many people want  namely, a big screen and little else. You can't always compare the PowerBook to PCs with the exact same features, because Apple doesn't offer as many models as the PC companies. A lot of the time there is no Mac that's really equivalent to a PC, although there's always a PC that's equivalent to any Mac.


----------



## Veljo (Nov 14, 2005)

Either way, we can't help but smile at the possibility of new Powerbooks


----------



## maz94protege (Nov 14, 2005)

i thought the G Processor was better and more efficient then the Intel.....maybe im wrong


----------



## nixgeek (Nov 14, 2005)

maz94protege said:
			
		

> i thought the G Processor was better and more efficient then the Intel.....maybe im wrong



View my post on another thread about why the PPC processors _seem_ like they are no match for the Intel chips regarding OS X.  Mind you, this is just my take on the whole thing, but I'm sure someone would be willing to correct me on what I posted....and I welcome it. 

http://www.macosx.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1253520&postcount=10

You might also want to view the rest of my posts on that thread for more information that I provided.


----------



## 128shot (Nov 15, 2005)

I'm under the impression that the laptops will first, since they are in dire need of upgrading, then the mac mini after that...


Though, I personally think they'll make a huge amount of money selling the OS rather than just computers, with an x86 market on hand it'll probably fly off the shelves.  Since you can just simply build the computer instead of buying one.


----------



## nixgeek (Nov 15, 2005)

128shot said:
			
		

> I'm under the impression that the laptops will first, since they are in dire need of upgrading, then the mac mini after that...
> 
> 
> Though, I personally think they'll make a huge amount of money selling the OS rather than just computers, with an x86 market on hand it'll probably fly off the shelves.  Since you can just simply build the computer instead of buying one.



If the 90s Mac OS licensing didn't eat enough into Apple's hardware sales, this would definitely do it.

Of course, with Jobs, anything is possible down the road.....remember that NeXTSTEP became OPENSTEP and it ran on stock Pentium hardware.  So again, anything is possible.  Heck, we never thought that Apple would go Intel..ever!


----------



## MrNivit1 (Nov 15, 2005)

nixgeek said:
			
		

> If the 90s Mac OS licensing didn't eat enough into Apple's hardware sales, this would definitely do it.




To the demise of Power Computing and the like, this is why the clone program was pulled.  The OS was selling well, but the hardware sales were being outcompeted by the clone competition.  Apple makes the largest part of its profit from hardware, therefore, allowing it to run on any beige box PC will ruin any profitability Apple hopes to make.  Also, this will eventually turn Apple into a software company (ala Microsoft), by refocusing Apple to the software end as the hardware end lags.  We would lose the tight hardware/software integration (i.e. new iMac/frontrow) that is the trademark of Apple.  If Apple were to be as far removed from the hardware end today then when the idea for FrontRow went around Infinite Loop, it may have been as buggy and problematic as MS's Media Center (see the demo Gates did with O'Brian).


----------



## kainjow (Nov 15, 2005)

nixgeek said:
			
		

> View my post on another thread about why the PPC processors _seem_ like they are no match for the Intel chips regarding OS X.  Mind you, this is just my take on the whole thing, but I'm sure someone would be willing to correct me on what I posted....and I welcome it.
> 
> http://www.macosx.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1253520&postcount=10
> 
> You might also want to view the rest of my posts on that thread for more information that I provided.


That's an interesting theory, nixgeek.

I can confirm (from a little birdy ) that x86 OS X IS fast. Boot times are very fast also, as fast or faster then current top of the line Macs.

The dual core PowerBooks next year will be smokin'!


----------



## lurk (Nov 15, 2005)

As to nixgeek's theory the original NeXTs ran on Motorola processors, the i386 port came much later.  Also all the interesting stuff is going on at the Objective-C level for what we are discussing here and that is already so far removed from the hardware that the architecture really won't matter.

Methinks it ain't so.


----------



## chevy (Nov 16, 2005)

We speak a lot about technologies, but Mac sales are marketing business.

The multimedia PC is an opportunity, the Mac mini with FrontRow and remote control is ready for that market. The market has been open by iPod. What else ?

In January we'll see a Mac mini, a lower cost screen (with some iPod style), maybe this Mac mini and screen will be black. Maybe the Mac mini will include an iPod dock.


----------



## fryke (Nov 16, 2005)

According to some rumour back then, the Mac mini originally _had_ an iPod dock or was at least prepared to get one... However: That's just a connector. Could as well use the USB cable.


----------



## symphonix (Nov 17, 2005)

You know, now that I think of it, the Mac mini is well due for a facelift, too. 



> According to some rumour back then, the Mac mini originally _had_ an iPod dock or was at least prepared to get one...



Yes, I've heard much the same thing. Apple definitely toyed with the idea of an integrated iPod dock, but decided against it late in development. The first revision Mac minis have a riser card running to the back of the drives that features a connector on the top of the riser that corresponds to a Firewire port (that is, it *is* a firewire port, but without the correct plug). This connector does't actually hook up to anything (though a few hardware hacks I know used it to hook up hard drives, as it runs faster than the EIDE bus used on the first Mac minis).

I doubt we'll see an iPod dock on the Mac mini, though, since I think the design team will be targeting the home-theatre PVR crowd with the next design. Front Row is pretty much a certainty, though.


----------



## sourcehound (Nov 20, 2005)

georgelien said:
			
		

> I think so.
> 
> What's your take?



This is a very very good question. Which mac would be the first to go to Intel. Considering the fact that the Intel based Macs won't support Classic, it's defiinately not going to be a desgin-oriented Machine, so the G5 towers are out. Same goes for the eMacs and iBooks which are staples of eduction--they'll need Classic for a while. That would leave the Powerbooks, Minis, and iMacs. 

I believe that Apple will definately want to put it's best foot forward, so I'm going to go with the Powerbooks, blazing fast Intel mobile processor, maybe dual core, even new design. Speed bumped G4 models will still be available. The mini isn't Apple's best Mac, so I don't see it being the lead in the transition. Whichever goes to Intel first, it's goingt to have to get rave reviews.

Dean Shavit

author of Mac HelpMate: http://www.machelpmate.com


----------



## Lt Major Burns (Nov 20, 2005)

why classic?  i only use classic for playing some old games i've completed years ago.  it's only for nostalgia.  and i'm in design.  everything in design is now fully carbonised/cocoa.


----------



## sourcehound (Nov 20, 2005)

Lt Major Burns said:
			
		

> why classic?  i only use classic for playing some old games i've completed years ago.  it's only for nostalgia.  and i'm in design.  everything in design is now fully carbonised/cocoa.



Everything may be carbonized in your company, but in many others Classic is still extremely mission-critical, a few examples:

1) Illustrator 8 is still very important to packaging designers who must exchange designs with those in other countries (China, Mexico, others)
2) There's still some accounting/CRM apps that requires Classic based on 4D and foxpro and even Omnis that haven't been updated or have OS X versions weaker than the Classic versions
3) Many schools have large repositories of educational software that requires Classic, and they either can't replace those programs (because OS X versions don't exist or aren't as good) or can't afford the cost of replacing them.
4) As with Illustrator 8, there's many companies still using QuarkXPress 4.1 workflows, especially foreign language publications

I'm sure there's other examples I haven't thought of.

Dean Shavit

author of Mac HelpMate http://www.macworkshops.com/machelpmate


----------



## Lt Major Burns (Nov 20, 2005)

but if the situation hasn't changed in the 4 years since the arrival of OSX, then why will it determine the order of arrival of Intel Macs?  it won't change in the next year.


----------



## RGrphc2 (Nov 20, 2005)

It's what needs the updating first really, next round of updates will replace the processors.

The Powermac, Powerbook, and iMac were Just Updated in October so i doubt that we will get those.

Needs updating : iBook, Mac Mini

the Mac Mini is the "average" computer user's computer, not a power user.  I can see the Mac Mini w/ Front Row + Remote leading the way of the Intel Based Macs.  Average users dont care about emulation or anything like that, so it is possible that the next gen of Mini's will sport the Yonah or Conroe chip


----------



## chevy (Nov 20, 2005)

I just loaded Front Row on my iMac G4... fantastic.

The Intel Mac mini will be a great multimedia solution.


----------



## 128shot (Nov 20, 2005)

I think the mac mini will replace the eMac.


----------



## Johndoemanny34362 (Nov 20, 2005)

It's about time Apple moved it's puters to intel! Would have been better for us if it were AMD (since intel sucks), but bad for them.


----------



## RGrphc2 (Nov 20, 2005)

128shot said:
			
		

> I think the mac mini will replace the eMac.



I think that's happen already, only educational institutions can buy the eMac


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Nov 20, 2005)

Huh?  The eMac has been available to the general public for some years now.

When the eMac was first introduced, it was only available to educational institutions.  A short while later, due to popularity and demand, Apple started selling it to the general public.


----------



## Lt Major Burns (Nov 21, 2005)

....and has now stopped selling it to the general public (in most countries)


----------



## kainjow (Dec 7, 2005)

Anyone know French?

Supposedly this confirms the x86 Mac mini in January...
http://technaute.lapresseaffaires.com/blogues/NelsonDumais/2005/11/mac_mini_sauce_intel.php

Related Think Secret article:
http://www.thinksecret.com/news/0511macmini2.html


----------



## RGrphc2 (Dec 7, 2005)

kainjow said:
			
		

> Anyone know French?
> 
> Supposedly this confirms the x86 Mac mini in January...
> http://technaute.lapresseaffaires.com/blogues/NelsonDumais/2005/11/mac_mini_sauce_intel.php



Translated


----------



## Mikuro (Dec 7, 2005)

RGrphc2 said:
			
		

> Translated


 You call this:





> That _the pure_ and hard macintoshisimes undertake as of now tearing their shirt, to roll themselves in the nettles, to knock the head against tower IBM of the Downtown area.


A translation?!? 

I'm better off just staring at the French until it starts making sense.


----------



## kainjow (Dec 7, 2005)

Mikuro said:
			
		

> You call this:A translation?!?
> 
> I'm better off just staring at the French until it starts making sense.


Hehe I tried using Babelfish but it didn't really make much sense.. we need a real translator


----------



## fryke (Dec 7, 2005)

As far as I understand it, it's just somebody's blog talking about several rumours about the Mac mini being a Tivo-Killer. The blog goes on to explain what a Tivo actually is (since we don't have them here in Europe) etc. I'm not sure how this supports the rumour of a Mac mini in January - other than that it thinks the rumour has some truth to it. But so do some forum members here... So nothing changes, right?...


----------



## georgelien (Dec 7, 2005)

It's nice to be right.

Ever since I meet the PC mini at the Computex 2005, I knew it would be easy for the PC system suppliers to come up with an "Intel-inside" Mac mini.

So, everything is on Apple.

When will the company introduce the new mini on the new platform really depends on when it's ready.


----------



## RGrphc2 (Dec 7, 2005)

Mikuro said:
			
		

> You call this:A translation?!?
> 
> I'm better off just staring at the French until it starts making sense.



dont yell at me, yell at the translators at google!


::ha::


----------



## fryke (Dec 12, 2005)

ThinkSecret now thinks it's going to be a 13.3 inch iBook, btw. -> http://www.thinksecret.com/news/0512briefly.html


----------



## whitesaint (Dec 12, 2005)

i hope that is true, a cheap small widescreen apple portable would be killer.  It might be, ThinkSecret is usually right...?


----------



## fryke (Dec 12, 2005)

Wasn't for the past three or four rumour-waves, though.


----------



## georgelien (Dec 12, 2005)

fryke said:
			
		

> ThinkSecret now thinks it's going to be a 13.3 inch iBook, btw. -> http://www.thinksecret.com/news/0512briefly.html




Thanks, fryke!

Rumors everywhere.

I'm still betting on the Mac mini to be the first to go Intel.


----------

