# Apple-Event the 28th



## alexandr (Feb 21, 2006)

according to Think Secret (http://www.thinksecret.com/news/0602event.html) Apple will unveil som new products on a special Apple Event the 28 in Cupertino.

hope to see some fun stuff..

alex.


----------



## Captain Code (Feb 21, 2006)

Hopefully the iBook replacement so I can buy one in the summer.


----------



## Satcomer (Feb 21, 2006)

Well the 30th Anniversary of Apple is on April 1st.


----------



## Thank The Cheese (Feb 21, 2006)

yeah i agree with satcomer. I wouldn't think they'd release anything new before April 1. Could be wrong but.


----------



## Captain Code (Feb 21, 2006)

Maybe so but they still have the event on Feb 28
http://www.macworld.com/news/2006/02/21/event/index.php

It's only 1 day before April 1 and it's a Tuesday.


----------



## Shookster (Feb 21, 2006)

I hope they unveil the new Intel PowerMacs. It's all very well upgrading the Powerbook which is limited by mobility and the iMac which is limited by the fact that it's not designed to be a high-end system, but I want to see what the Intel chips can REALLY do.


----------



## RGrphc2 (Feb 21, 2006)

The rumors are pointing to MacBook (iBook Replacement) and Mac Mini w/ Intel Chips, cause the Core Solo is up and running (single core yonah)

I might be getting a new desktop soon...to replace my Dell cause i hate it so much...


----------



## celeborn (Feb 22, 2006)

Captain Code said:
			
		

> Maybe so but they still have the event on Feb 28
> http://www.macworld.com/news/2006/02/21/event/index.php
> 
> It's only 1 day before April 1 and it's a Tuesday.



I think you forgot about March


----------



## ora (Feb 22, 2006)

I got some semi insider rumor about a new apple media center product, but I have no idea whether its linked to this or not.


----------



## Lt Major Burns (Feb 22, 2006)

you and everybody else for the last 4 years ^^^^

^_^


----------



## ora (Feb 22, 2006)

Hehe, true. I won't go into it too much here, but it was "there will be a demonstration of new media center technology in the next fortnight" which made it a bit more interesting to me than "they are thinking of maybe doing something like this....maybe...someday". That said, the implication was an internal rather than external demonstartion. Or maybe it was just more hot air.


----------



## fryke (Feb 22, 2006)

either way: I'm looking forward to next week. Whether it's the rumoured MacBook (nano, lite, without-a-subname, whatever), a tablet computer or finally the iPhone (the iCal logo on the invitation may suggest something regarding a PIM solution...)... I'm just glad Apple's not stopping to bring out stuff 'til April.


----------



## JetwingX (Feb 22, 2006)

celeborn said:
			
		

> I think you forgot about March


Yeah, You confused me with that . maybe they will announce something Tuesday and release it by april...


----------



## Jason (Feb 22, 2006)

If its a new iBook, i might be getting myself a new laptop sooner rather than later


----------



## Captain Code (Feb 22, 2006)

celeborn said:
			
		

> I think you forgot about March



LOL, I have to go back to grade 1.


----------



## sinclair_tm (Feb 22, 2006)

you all have it wrong!  apple is going to celebrate my birthday on the 28th.  so what is everyone getting me from the apple store?


----------



## georgelien (Feb 23, 2006)

alexandr said:
			
		

> according to Think Secret (http://www.thinksecret.com/news/0602event.html) Apple will unveil som new products on a special Apple Event the 28 in Cupertino.
> 
> hope to see some fun stuff..
> 
> alex.




Next week, we will see the new iBook, or should I say the "MacBook"?

. . . with a single core CPU though.


Apple will deliver us something on April 1st, for its anniversary, like the 20th Anniversary Macintosh (http://www.everymac.com/systems/apple/20th_mac/index.html).


----------



## Quietly (Feb 23, 2006)

I confidently predict a replacement for the G5 Powermac line-up, using Intel's all-singing, all-dancing new processor which doesn't have a proper name yet. And isn't due to be released till much later in the year. But what the hell, this is Apple! I like surprises...


----------



## nixgeek (Feb 23, 2006)

Quietly said:
			
		

> I confidently predict a replacement for the G5 Powermac line-up, using Intel's all-singing, all-dancing new processor which doesn't have a proper name yet. And isn't due to be released till much later in the year. But what the hell, this is Apple! I like surprises...



I seriously doubt this since the pro apps have yet to become universal and won't become so until either later this year or next year.


----------



## Shookster (Feb 23, 2006)

Quietly said:
			
		

> I confidently predict a replacement for the G5 Powermac line-up, using Intel's all-singing, all-dancing new processor which doesn't have a proper name yet. And isn't due to be released till much later in the year. But what the hell, this is Apple! I like surprises...



I think they'd probably save that for NAB.


----------



## fryke (Feb 23, 2006)

Although I, too, doubt we'll see PowerMac replacements so soon, I _have_ to state that the MacBook Pro _is_ a machine aimed at professionals, and it quite clearly was released _before_ the pro apps. Apple's pro apps will be released in March, so that's _not_ so far away. Adobe/Macromedia apps can run just fine on faster intel hardware for a couple of months. You have to see it this way: If pros are going to buy a pro Mac now &#8211;*they probably _won't_ buy any dual-/quad-core PowerMacs (not many, anyway), because with the transition to intel, the hardware _already_ seems obsolete in _very_ short time. So Apple can either stay with the PPC G5 version (and not sell too many) or switch them to intel (and maybe not sell that many, either, because of the lack of native pro-software).


----------



## steven_lufc (Feb 23, 2006)

http://www.engadget.com/2006/02/23/is-this-the-video-ipod-or-mac-tablet/


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Feb 23, 2006)

Well, Apple is predicting "fun, new hardware" (or something like that) -- "fun" usually isn't associated with their pro lineup, so I'm thinking something more along the lines of the iPod or iBook... most likely the iPod.

That "full-screen" iPod there, steven_lufc, looks tasty!  Let's cross our fingers!


----------



## georgelien (Feb 23, 2006)

fryke said:
			
		

> Although I, too, doubt we'll see PowerMac replacements so soon, I _have_ to state that the MacBook Pro _is_ a machine aimed at professionals, and it quite clearly was released _before_ the pro apps. Apple's pro apps will be released in March, so that's _not_ so far away. Adobe/Macromedia apps can run just fine on faster intel hardware for a couple of months. You have to see it this way: If pros are going to buy a pro Mac now &#8211;*they probably _won't_ buy any dual-/quad-core PowerMacs (not many, anyway), because with the transition to intel, the hardware _already_ seems obsolete in _very_ short time. So Apple can either stay with the PPC G5 version (and not sell too many) or switch them to intel (and maybe not sell that many, either, because of the lack of native pro-software).



I disagree, fryke.  I doubt there will be any replacement for the Power Mac G5 until the next WWDC.  The MacBook Pro was introduced early this year because this year is the year of Duo Core (DC) for Intel's mobile processor platform.  While latest Intel mobile can deliver good performance over the aging G4 mobile infrastructure, no current desktop product from Intel, "that money can buy," has been able to match the current Power Mac G5s.

I purchased my HD PowerBook G4 last November because I knew it was the last PowerBook, based on G4 anyway--but now we learned--that Apple was going to offer.  Now with the Apple Pro apps not really for Intel-inside Macs and major big-times software companies taking their time to update their products, I believe a lot of pro apps users, me included, would rather still stick with G4s and G5s for the time being.

Remember, a 1.67GHz PowerBook G4 can still out perform a high-end MacBook Pro when it comes to running a software written for the PowerPC platform.

I was at the MacWorld San Francisco this year when I tested the new MacBook Pro, and I was NOT very impressed.  The reason may be because with the same 2GB of RAM, the demo MacBook Pro didn't seem much faster than my PowerBook G4.

Would I get a MacBook Pro or a MacBook, the next iBook?  You bet.  But when should really be the question.  2 or 3 years from now should be the answer.  For now, I'm sticking with my 2-hand Power Mac G5 with 8GB of RAM, HD PowerBook G4 with 2GB of RAM, iMac G5 with 1.5 GB of RAM, iBook G4 with 1.25GB of RAM and other older Mac portables and desktops.

Oh, I forgot to mention the software I use.  They range from digital imaging to music and video software.  For digital imaging, I think is where the new Intel Macs could shine.  But when it comes to software that process in real-time, G4s and G5s should hold their grounds for a while.


----------



## Quietly (Feb 24, 2006)

A few of things...

1) I may not have been ENTIRELY serious about the PowerMac's going Intel next week (but I'd like 'em too). Fact is, Intel haven't formally announced the new chip that'll go in the new PowerMac (or whatever it'll be called) yet, so it's an almost certain no-no.

2) 





> ...with the Apple Pro apps not really for Intel-inside Macs and major big-times software companies taking their time to update their products, I believe a lot of pro apps users, me included, would rather still stick with G4s and G5s for the time being.



Logic Pro has just gone Universal, Final Cut Studio goes Universal next month. What Pro apps were you referring to exactly? As for RUNNING pro apps, my 1.8GHz G5 iMac happily edits uncompressed 10bit 4:2:2 in FCP, I imagine the Intel Core Duo iMac running a Universal FCP will do so even better - so I can't see how a Quad G5 would be ahead of a Quad Intel whatever when it's released.

3) 





> The MacBook Pro was introduced early this year because this year is the year of Duo Core (DC) for Intel's mobile processor platform.



Er, no. This is the year that ALL Macs will convert to Intel processors. Core Duo was merely the first processor that Intel released this year. 

4) 





> I doubt there will be any replacement for the Power Mac G5 until the next WWDC.



You're probably right, but that's only 4 months away. My original post was a cheeky guess at how Apple could "surprise" us, the way they like too!


----------



## Lt Major Burns (Feb 24, 2006)

Quietly said:
			
		

> Logic Pro has just gone Universal, Final Cut Studio goes Universal next month. What Pro apps were you referring to exactly? As for RUNNING pro apps, my 1.8GHz G5 iMac happily edits uncompressed 10bit 4:2:2 in FCP, I imagine the Intel Core Duo iMac running a Universal FCP will do so even better - so I can't see how a Quad G5 would be ahead of a Quad Intel whatever when it's released.



not apple's "in an ideal world" Pro apps, but the real ones.  Photoshop, Illustrator, InDesign, Quark, After Effects, Flash, Dreamweaver, Director, AVID, Premier, GoLive, all of these are still very much in the development stage, because, for most of them, they were bodged into Carbon when they were converted across from OS9.

by bodged, i mean the developers never bothered with Xcode, so the process of conversion to Universal (which requires it to be Xcode compatible, and preferably Cocoa written) will be a long one for them.  the macromedia apps, for example, are clearly cross-platform, as none of them seem to really work natively. a full set of pro-apps all written from the ground up in Cocoa would be really nice:  fully native apps not only running fast, but running fully compatible,  not something we've really seen on the mac for many, many years (68k days, if you think about it, being as most of the early PPC days were sort-of emulated)


----------



## Quietly (Feb 24, 2006)

Ah, it was the phrase "Apple's Pro Apps" that deceived me!

I did notice that the new version of AE wasn't Universal and had wondered why that was - you've enlightened me on that one! Um, but they don't make Premiere for the Mac anymore y'know - and I wouldn't exactly describe it as a  "pro" app anyway (sorry Adobe).


----------



## Lt Major Burns (Feb 24, 2006)

he he he i added premier as an attempt to pad my point out.... as was golive...  i may as well have added CorelDraw!...


----------



## georgelien (Feb 24, 2006)

Quietly said:
			
		

> Logic Pro has just gone Universal, Final Cut Studio goes Universal next month. What Pro apps were you referring to exactly? As for RUNNING pro apps, my 1.8GHz G5 iMac happily edits uncompressed 10bit 4:2:2 in FCP, I imagine the Intel Core Duo iMac running a Universal FCP will do so even better - so I can't see how a Quad G5 would be ahead of a Quad Intel whatever when it's released.




Good that you asked.

I'm referring to the software that have larger user-based, such as Pro Tool and Adobe products.

Yes, the rest of the "Apple Pro apps" in the Final Cut Studio will not be ready until next Month.

So technically, I'm right.
 

For the professional users who cannot wait, get a Power Mac G5 now.

For those who can wait--WAIT!


----------



## Quietly (Feb 24, 2006)

Of course, if Apple are really on the ball they could be about to release a raft of new software products to cash-in on the fact that some of the bigger developers seem a bit slow. Motion Pro as a rival to AE? That could be quite neat.


----------



## Shookster (Feb 24, 2006)

Quietly said:
			
		

> Of course, if Apple are really on the ball they could be about to release a raft of new software products to cash-in on the fact that some of the bigger developers seem a bit slow. Motion Pro as a rival to AE? That could be quite neat.


Wouldn't Motion Pro = Shake?


----------



## Quietly (Feb 24, 2006)

No.


----------



## Lt Major Burns (Feb 25, 2006)

actually, yeah, what is the difference?


----------



## ksv (Feb 25, 2006)

Lt Major Burns said:
			
		

> actually, yeah, what is the difference?



Shake is the ultimate compositing and special effects development environment, whereas Motion is merly intended for relatively quick and cheap projects. Shake is also ten times the price of Motion.

I personally think Motion is about as «Pro» as it can get before it becomes a Shake-style compositing app. But I can imagine Shake 5 implementing some of the technologies in Motion, e.g. Quartz for real-time previewing on Mac OS X.


----------



## Quietly (Feb 25, 2006)

Shake's compositing software, Motion is really motion-graphics software. Motion is also an Apple designed product, whereas Shake is one they bought and have since modified. When I said "Motion-Pro" I was thinking of something that would be Apple's answer to AE with bells & whistles, rather than something as "Pro" as Shake.


----------



## ksv (Feb 28, 2006)

I'd love Shake with live preview rendering (that actually works) and a Cocoa-based interface in an Aqua Pro version of Quartz Composer. But that's a bit off-topic, I guess 

For today's event? Endless bragging about iTunes and iPod sales of course. And perhaps some iPod accessories, a new Mac mini and some fancy software.


----------



## Quietly (Feb 28, 2006)

Just a thought, but possible additions to the Macbook Pro range as well (such as a 17" for example). Not as the "main event", but maybe an aside.


----------



## Lt Major Burns (Feb 28, 2006)

when is it?


----------



## Quietly (Feb 28, 2006)

6pm (GMT) I think.


----------



## MacFreak (Feb 28, 2006)

Anyone know if there any live news about this event?


----------



## Gig' (Feb 28, 2006)

macfreak found a live link but it's in french ..

http://keynote.mac4ever.org/

if it helps


----------



## bbloke (Feb 28, 2006)

Also:

http://www.macrumorslive.com/web

and

http://ilounge.com/


----------



## JetwingX (Feb 28, 2006)

New mac mini ^_^!!!!
Looks the same but has Front Row
Intel Core Solo Processor 2.5x-3.2x faster
4 USB Ports, and SPDIF audio port, and can now be connected to your TV.
Front row also now picks up shared music libraries, and now it can pick up shared Photo libraries too


----------



## nixgeek (Feb 28, 2006)

The new Mac mini is a disappointment.  The price was increased and the video was made worse.  Had they left the price the same, I wouldn't have minded it since it would have been comparable to the Mac mini copycat PC machines out there, but this is just ridiculous.


----------



## ksv (Feb 28, 2006)

nixgeek said:
			
		

> The new Mac mini is a disappointment.  The price was increased and the video was made worse.  Had they left the price the same, I wouldn't have minded it since it would have been comparable to the Mac mini copycat PC machines out there, but this is just ridiculous.



I've used a DTK Mac with an Intel GMA 900 for a few months, and the graphics seemed much more snappy than the Mac mini even though I've been running the DTK at much higher resolution than the Mac mini I've used.

Based on my experience, I would expect the GMA 950 to be significantly faster than the Radeon 9200 with 32 MB VRAM.

I find the price of the high-end model to be quite absurd, however. For $400 more you'd get an iMac with an excellent 17" LCD, keyboard and mouse, a faster processor, a faster HDD and twice the storage.


----------



## Mikuro (Feb 28, 2006)

ksv said:
			
		

> Based on my experience, I would expect the GMA 950 to be significantly faster than the Radeon 9200 with 32 MB VRAM.


Maybe, but then again, nobody would have expected them to stick with that card in 2006. I'll be interested to see benchmarks. In any case, it's certainly not good for the system as a whole, since it starves applications of a fair chunk of RAM. 512MB wasn't sunshine-and-roses even before. Taking 80+MB of that away for video can't be good.


----------



## mw84 (Feb 28, 2006)

Just finished reading this, Mikuro:

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,1821804,00.asp


----------



## Lt Major Burns (Feb 28, 2006)

so, it's a shit as it sounds.  apple used to praise the mini for having great games ability.  that page is now unsurprisingly missing from the apple website.


----------



## Jason (Feb 28, 2006)

the 950 will be a better performer than the previous Radeon chip, imho, shared memory or not.


----------



## ksv (Feb 28, 2006)

mw84 said:
			
		

> Just finished reading this, Mikuro:
> 
> http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,1821804,00.asp



2D performance is what matters for most tasks in a graphics-intensive OS. A Quartz benchmark would be more appropriate to compare the minis. I don't think anyone would expect to be able to run the latest 3D games on a Mac mini with blazing speed anyway.

As Mikuro pointed out though, 512 MB RAM is already too little. Rosetta often eats hundreds of MBs _per application_, resulting in continous swapping and very slow application switching.


----------



## fryke (Feb 28, 2006)

Then again, the Mac mini _is_ Apple's low-end. 599 or 499 USD. It's neither aimed at gamers nor is it aimed at graphics professionals. Integrated graphics is good enough, and I hear good things about the later versions of intel's integrated graphics chips. So I wouldn't write it off just yet. The RAM issue... Well &#8211; if you intend to use it with iLife '06 and maybe iWork '06: Those are universal already. If you intend to run Adobe CS through Rosetta emulation on it: You wouldn't expect the best possible performance of a Mac mini anyway. You'd buy a PowerMac G5 or wait for its replacement. For its purpose, the Mac mini certainly is reasonably well equipped.


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Feb 28, 2006)

fryke said:
			
		

> 599 or 499 USD.


Not anymore... try $599 or $799.  Still considered low-end, but much more expensive, relatively.

Apple's touted "$500 computer" is gone as of now.


----------



## ScottW (Feb 28, 2006)

Yea... the $1299 for the iMac is a much better deal. By the time you add a iSight, Keyboard/Mouse and a 17" display to that Mini, a 7200 RPM drive you will be putting up a lot more $$$.


----------



## fryke (Feb 28, 2006)

I meant it doesn't matter much whether it's 599 or 499: It *IS* the low-end Mac.

And Scott: That is unless you already _have_ a decent TFT as well as a USB-keyboard and a mouse. I, for one, already have those items. I'm sure many PC users out there do, too. Then, the iMac seems like much too much. Since you then have a spare TFT or something, that would've been fine. Depends on where you're coming from, I guess...


----------



## Qion (Feb 28, 2006)

Ah, I guess this is a bit disappointing. But hey, it was unexpected to the general public and not really hyped _that much_, so I believe we should all just shut up and accept what was freely given to us. (Well, for an extra 100 USD.)

I think that Apple did a fine job despite the integrated graphics bullshit. They added two USB ports, a larger stock HD, a dual layer DVD burner option, Front Row, and a processor that's quite a bit faster. I'm not let down by this upgrade... although I was wishing for something a bit more exciting.

I don't even get where Apple's going with the Hi-Fi. It's just another overpriced Bose system that people who shop at Sharper Image on a daily basis are going to buy... I'd much rather get on Amazon, buy a decent home theater system and an iPod cable and listen to my iPod on my home theater that can also be used for TV or movies...


----------



## Mikuro (Feb 28, 2006)

One good thing nobody's mentioned yet is that it now has an AUDIO IN PORT. As a Mini owner myself, I was pretty annoyed when I discovered I couldn't use a microphone. Well, I know there's the third-party iMic, but still, that's more money, especially when you consider the USB hub I'd need to make up for my Mini's sore lack of ports &#8212; which is another thing Apple fixed with the new revision. So kudos to Apple on that.

Too bad there's still just one FireWire port, though.


----------



## fryke (Feb 28, 2006)

I also just read that AirPort and Bluetooth are already in the base model. That was more than 100 USD earlier, I guess...


----------



## Lt Major Burns (Mar 1, 2006)

another note, while reading this 2 year old thread, absolutely no-one complained that apple were charging £500 for an iPod.


----------



## fryke (Mar 1, 2006)

Btw.: The integrated graphics takes 64 MB of the main memory. Not "80 MB minimum" or something like that. So it's not _that_ bad. 512 MB is meager, anyway, and _if_ you update, you'll go 1024. Now 960 MB is not _that_ low, so it doesn't make much of a difference.


----------



## Mikuro (Mar 1, 2006)

fryke said:
			
		

> Btw.: The integrated graphics takes 64 MB of the main memory. Not "80 MB minimum" or something like that.


I was a little confused about this. Look what Apple says in their footnotes on the specs page:


> Memory available to Mac OS X may vary depending on graphics needs. *Minimum graphics memory usage is 80MB, resulting in 432MB* of system memory available.


They do say all over the place that it uses 64MB of "shared memory". I guess that means 80MB is _reserved_ for graphics use, with an _additional_ 64MB being shared with the main system, making maximum possible graphics memory 142MB. That's the best I can make of it, anyway.


----------



## ksv (Mar 1, 2006)

Pierre-Olivier Latour said:
			
		

> [...] Although the graphics chip is an embedded Intel i950, and the performance won't be stellar - say compared to the new iMacs or MacBook Pros, but definitely better than the previous Mac Mini



I'll follow up with a question about system memory usage for graphics


----------



## appleman.design (Mar 1, 2006)

yes.. thats it march comes before april.. how silly of me...LOL


----------



## Shookster (Mar 1, 2006)

fryke said:
			
		

> Btw.: The integrated graphics takes 64 MB of the main memory. Not "80 MB minimum" or something like that. So it's not _that_ bad. 512 MB is meager, anyway, and _if_ you update, you'll go 1024. Now 960 MB is not _that_ low, so it doesn't make much of a difference.



I think 512 is acceptable for a Mini. Offering 512 for the Power Mac is not though (which is what mine came with).


----------

