Mactels to be late?

nixgeek

Mac of the SubGenius! :-)
VEEEEry intresting....but then again this is the Inq. I'm hoping that Apple hasn't shot itself in the foot.

Regardless, if they switch back to PPC (and I don't see why they would since they've also snubbed IBM, although there still is that deal with Freescale), it just means that my iMac G5 was more of an investment than it already was. :p
 

nixgeek

Mac of the SubGenius! :-)
Yes, they only are offering the G4s, but they are also working on dual-core G4 chips as well.

And by the investment I was referring to the possible waning of PPC support in the future, and continuance of support if hey would continue to use PPC again.

Mind you, these are just random thoughts in my head of what this could lead to. Don't take it to heart. :p
 

MisterMe

Registered
gerbick said:
.... Now, wouldn't that be a bit ironic?
When did I miss Apple's announcement of which processors it would use in its Intel-based Macs? Before things can be ironic, they first have to be real. In legal parlance, the story assumes facts not in evidence.
 

fryke

Moderator
Staff member
Mod
Well, btw., just last week Steve Jobs confirmed that everything's going according to plan, and that the first intel Macs will come to market in June 2006.
And really: They have a LONG time to decide which machine comes out first. If it's the Mac mini, it doesn't _really_ matter that much whether it's an older or newer form of the Pentium M processor or some sort of Celeron - as long as the machine's faster than the last PPC version. So even _if_ that rumour is true and Apple can't get intel to give them what they want early enough, Apple has a lot of options, since intel has a lot of different chips.
 

nixgeek

Mac of the SubGenius! :-)
MisterMe said:
When did I miss Apple's announcement of which processors it would use in its Intel-based Macs? Before things can be ironic, they first have to be real. In legal parlance, the story assumes facts not in evidence.
Again, it's the Inq.

Doctor's Rx: To be taken with a grain of salt. :D
 

Mikuro

Crotchety UI Nitpicker
I follow Mac news pretty closely, and I have never heard of any of the three Intel chips that article mentions. They just imply Apple was intending to use them, but I've never heard ANY official (or even semi-official) word on which chip Apple plans to use.

Did I miss something, or is this just the Inquirer being....well, the Inquirer.
 

fryke

Moderator
Staff member
Mod
Yes, and certainly Apple is interested in them. But let's look at things from some distance. So intel has said when which chips are going to be released. Wouldn't it be stupid of Apple _not_ to ask for premium service? Apple currently certainly has good press, and intel has been interested to get Apple as a customer, so even _if_ Dell has the (mentioned in the article) point of selling much more machines, Apple has _other_ points.
And as I've said: They can simply use _other_ intel chips, should everything else go wrong.
 

kainjow

Registered
If the first Intel Macs that come out are Mac minis, who cares if it's not the best processor? As long as it's faster and it's Intel, no one will complain. If the PowerBooks don't get the best mobile processor, and they need something powerful, then one can start to worry. So I'm not too worried at this point. They still have a long time until the first Intel Macs are released.
 

Mikuro

Crotchety UI Nitpicker
Right. Apple isn't married to one particular Intel chip. As long as they're not using worse chips than the rest of the PC world, does it really make a difference? That's one of the advantages of the switch to Intel — Apple doesn't really need to care so much about chip delays, because they'll stay competitive anyway.
 

fryke

Moderator
Staff member
Mod
Well, there's a danger in how Apple tends to update their lines, though. If they continue to take 6-9 months between releases - for whatever reason there may be - there could be times when Apple's machines lag behind intel's latest processors. I certainly hope that with the move to intel, Apple will update their lines as frequently as other PC makers do, because when I'm ready to buy my next Mac, I want it to have the latest available processor, not something that has been replaced by a newer/better version in Sony/HP/Dell computers. The more direct competition has its pros and cons, of course.
 

Veljo

Mac Enthusiast
I agree with what fryke says, if they want to remain competitive they need to update their ranges a _lot_ quicker than 6-9 months.

The new Mac range will no doubt have all kinds of Intel processors thrown in not just the one, so I think Apple will use the first year or so to get a real indication of which processors perform the best with their hardware.
 

gerbick

poptart villain
Intel won't change how fast they update their lines just for Apple though. Intel's too big, Apple is too small.

After this update, it's going to be closer to 12-14 months before the next update to the P4 line from what I've seen. The next few months will see a "line" of products ending with next year's Yonah. The Xeon's are already getting their updates this year. The consumer products are all 4th Quarter this year starting.
 

fryke

Moderator
Staff member
Mod
No, if you look at intel's processor lines, they're updated far more often. Small steps only, but still steps that make a difference.
 

Mikuro

Crotchety UI Nitpicker
That's a good point. I'm not sure exactly why Apple's updates are so far apart. I always just assumed it was because that's the way IBM dished out the chips — in fewer, larger boosts. I certainly hope Apple will update their lines promptly when Intel releases even slightly-improved new CPUs. It just wouldn't be good for Apple to be 2-4 months right behind everyone else, even if that only amounts to a 5-10% boost in CPU speed.
 

gerbick

poptart villain
I've had a 3.2ghz P4 for almost 18 months now. The fastest P4, 3.73ghz - at this very moment. For the PC world, once we hit 2ghz, it got slower processor speed since. But a lot of the tech has gone into the core, cache, memory chipset, and manufacture size.

But to the Mac world, that would almost be amazing, I guess.

I still don't see Intel giving Apple preferential treatment if they're going to be late on a processor though. But they have enough chips to fall back on at this moment.
 

ApeintheShell

Registered
P u, the article read like someone's blog and this is news? Sounds like doubt from people that don't know the computer industry. We can toss this in with CNET's articles from the past five years.

I think Apple has a better business relationship with Intel than other companies have at this time. There was a 'moment' at the keynote. It was a football hug moment brought to you by Apple. If the chips are late it will be okay. There are plenty of hugs to go around. Hugs! La la la la!
 

texanpenguin

Registered Penguin
As per the update cycle, I think it will work in a similar way to how they do now:

Currently, every 8 or so months, we get speed bumps, from (for instance) 1GHz to 1.25, 1.25 to 1.33, 1.33 to 1.42, 1.42 to 1.5

I figure that in the PC world where speed bumps of a relative amount such as these, approximately 100 - 250 MHz or so, we'll get the lines updated (so this will happen far more frequently, but of the same sort of jump).


I don't really care how far the chip lags behind its competition, but I know it will affect a lot of buyers once they can see directly that their prospective Mac only has a 3GHz Intel Pentium 4 chip when Brand X sports a 3.8GHz Pentium 4.
 
Top