Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Ok, why would an Intel PB outclass existing PB?
- Thread starter nph
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I don't believe the chip itself will be a problem - I think I'm right in saying the move to IBM was pretty smooth also - it's going to be the hardware design changes that will inevitably be introduced in the new machines that will be the source of issues.
A new form, possible built-in iSight and other potential changes all create scope for initial teething problems, the new HD screens on the latest Powerbooks but one example. It just seems to me a fact of life for Apple that initial releases of new products or new product variants should invariably have a huge "caveat emptor" (let the buyer beware) stamped across the boxes! A little dramatic I admit but you get my drift.
I am truly excited by the possibilities of the new Intel-based machines but for me I am more than happy sticking with what I have, which has been purchased this year, for at least 2 further years and then I will consider upgrading at that point, when hopefully such teething problems have been ironed out. Another useful spin-off may well be that standard configurations at that point will likely include what were BTO's in the beginning.
Vanilla
A new form, possible built-in iSight and other potential changes all create scope for initial teething problems, the new HD screens on the latest Powerbooks but one example. It just seems to me a fact of life for Apple that initial releases of new products or new product variants should invariably have a huge "caveat emptor" (let the buyer beware) stamped across the boxes! A little dramatic I admit but you get my drift.
I am truly excited by the possibilities of the new Intel-based machines but for me I am more than happy sticking with what I have, which has been purchased this year, for at least 2 further years and then I will consider upgrading at that point, when hopefully such teething problems have been ironed out. Another useful spin-off may well be that standard configurations at that point will likely include what were BTO's in the beginning.
Vanilla
Or your Collector's Edition FIRST Mactel PBs and PMs.generik said:07 is still a while a way, meanwhile stock up on your collector's edition final PPC line PB/PMs
I do not foresee any real risk in the Rev. A Mactel PBs. The technologies are mostly proven. The processes by which Intel develops and tests chips and chipsets are very methodical and consistent (I have been to Intel factories).
The risk lies in the software, particularly in the performance of Rosetta for existing PPC applications. However, it seems to me that Apple will provide Intel binaries for all of their consumer-level software upon launch of the first Mactel. Some of Apple's Pro software may go native on launch or shortly after launch. Third-party software, however, may lag behind, requiring the use of Rosetta.
I will be *very* interested in Apple's dual-core Yonah PB nevertheless.
And if I can carry a single machine that runs both Windows and Mac OS at full native speeds, WOW, it will be the best of both worlds. I will not go shopping at dell.com for my next Windows laptop.
Technologies might be proven, but I don't want my isight module popping off.. or loose odds and ends.. or whatever.
Apple is starting to look more and more like a Chinese manufacturer selling for high street prices... look at the Nano, look at the recent PB.
Apple is starting to look more and more like a Chinese manufacturer selling for high street prices... look at the Nano, look at the recent PB.
No. The Pentium M has never run faster than 2.25GHz. GHz is just one measure of performance, and these days it's typically a bad one, you know that right? The AMD Athlon chips have been much lower in clock speed than Intel's chips for a long time, but have always competed on a similar level or beaten them handily. Just because one chip is 3 or more GHz doesn't mean it can beat a 2GHz processor.iQuit said:
Cless said:
I have to second this, there are people running AMD's that if you went by their GHz you'd think are far behind an Intel processor's speed but can smoke them. Back in the day processor speed meant something but if an OS was written well and the quality of the chip (the materials) lacked like older Intels did... I mean, hell, that's why when Apple started losing the megahertz war there was still programs out there on the Mac that could outperform the PC. And even that's subjective, how well did a coder write an app for the PPC processor vs. x86 instruction, that alone can be either a big gain or lack to the processor.
And nowadays there's so many other things in play from bus speeds to RAM to registers on the chip, caches, and a dizzying array of items that make GHz a horrid guide. Intel themselves, long the marketing whore of "look at how fast OUR chips are (like talking about your pen*s, the more you brag the less you have)" fell victim to their own spin cycle. Apple was claiming a megahertz myth, which was their own spin cycle but one that actually had some grains of truth to in some respects. Even now people diss the G4 and by all means it's a processor who's time has passed, however, there are some instructions, even at more than half the GHz of an Intel and AMD, can be competent (but it doesn't have much legs left).
GHz was bragging rights for loser geeks, guys who lived in their parents basements and built their own boxes, and (soulless, close-set-of-eyes) Michael Dell. If you talked to REAL engineers or coders about how cool your machine was because it was so and so megahertz they'd just look at you like a guy who was touting his "bitchin' Camaro" with a V8 engine and fuzzy dice... YOU may think that's cool, but in reality a Porsche with a four cylinder engine could dust your car for lunch.
And to wit about Intel now trying to downplay MHz, their newer chips run much slower than their P4, a chip that, IMHO, ALWAYS sucked up the joint is was purely hype, hell the PIII in many ways not only was, but is, superior, and Intel milked the living crap out of the P4... and it still s*cked! Now they're going with these M series, and quietly sent out press releases to resellers and computer makers "don't talk about the MHz" (truth by the way) because the M chips run at a much slower MHz. Windoze users in general aren't that bright and so many had bought into the "but it's X.XX GHz, it's must be good, right?" (bzzzt, wrong bozo!) and now Intel needed to unspin what it spun. M chips run slower... but are in fact greatly superior chips, and faster at even half that of a P4.
So recap, MHz is a nice number, but without the big picture, it hasn't much relevance. Like the guy in the Camaro watching the puff of burning rubber blowing past him hiding a 911 then disappearing over the horizon way out in front of him. He thought his mighty (crappy American) V8 was the s***, truth was, it was only s***.
An iSight popping off is mostly a manufacturing problem -- a bad batch. iSight cameras are not popping off from the new iMac. Apple has learned a few good lessons from things like:generik said:
1. PowerBook LCD white blobs.
2. PowerBook lid coming too close to the keyboard when closed.
3. PowerBook bottom surface not flat, but wobbly when placed on a flat surface.
4. PowerBook LCD hinge coming apart.
Apple will replace your laptop if these things happen. I am still not really concerned about buying a Rev. A Mactel. I will go to an Apple store and really kick the tires, so to speak, before making my buying decision.