RSSIntel Macs Make Debut at Macworld
By Ed Oswald | Published January 10, 2006, 1:36 PM
FROM MACWORLD As widely rumored, Steve Jobs announced at Macworld Tuesday that Apple's switch to Intel processors will occur about six months earlier than previously announced. The first Macs to make the transition will be the iMac line, with the rest of the company's products moving to Intel by the end of the year.
Previously, Apple had only publicly committed to releasing Intel Macs by the middle of 2006, around the time the company holds its annual Worldwide Developer's Conference.
Many thought Apple would leave the iMac line alone, considering it had refreshed the lineup only three months ago as part of the video iPod announcement.
The new desktop machines include Intel's Core Duo processor. The chip makes the machine about two to three times faster than the iMac G5, even rivaling the power of the company's top-of-the-line Power Mac systems.
Mac OS 10.4.4 will power the new iMacs, and was widely rumored to be the first build that would support the Intel processor. All applications are native to Intel in this build, Jobs said, and would run on both the PowerPC and Intel platforms.
The company also announced that professional apps from Apple would become universal in March. If a customer has the latest PowerPC version, they would be able to upgrade to a universal binary for $49. Other companies, such as Quark, have begun to ship betas of compatible applications beginning today.
Microsoft will be releasing universal binaries with the next release of Office for Mac, however Apple worked with the company to ensure Office works well under Rosetta in the meantime. Rosetta is the application layer used to run old PowerPC-based applications on Intel based Macs.
The Intel Imacs are available immediately in the same 17-inch and 20-inch configurations offered today, and start at $1299 USD.
Apple will follow up the Intel iMac in February with a new laptop dubbed MacBook Pro, a replacement to the company's PowerBook lineup. The MacBook Pro will be between four and five times faster than Apple's current notebooks.
So, will I be able to install osX on my compaq laptop?
Score: 0
|Well if you can't put it together yourself, what's the bloody point?
Score: 0
|I like Macs, I like OS X, but I hate Apple when they lie about their performance. 6 months ago G5 processor were more than 3 times faster than equivalent intel P4 and NOW they say that that new intel processors (Yonah) are twice as fast as G5... erh, sorry? God, what an improvment for intel, clap clap clap.
You can say your computers are nicer, your OS better, simpler, faster and it's all true. Now, you say bullsh*** like this and the remaining points are to think about.
Apple, do you Think Different?
Score: 0
|Only find one problem with your statement the P4s are faster then the G5, I would say 2-3 times faster.
Score: 0
|MacBook POS ??? yeah,.... this would've been a more suiting name ... :P
Score: 0
|Yeah, cuz having a notebook that can do all of those things would just suck, right?
ATi video, on par with a GeForce 7800. Built-in digital video camera, USB, Firewire, SATA, 2Ghz CPU...yeah...it's definately a POS.
...A POS more powerful and far more usefull than my current desktop.
Score: 0
|You can really tell that the new reporters for BN are MAC fan's. The whole site is covered with the junk.
Score: 0
|Their whole site is covered with PC stuff too. Does that make them PC fans as well?
Score: 0
|I have never seen so much MAC CRAP until now.
Score: 0
|There's been lot's of HD-DVD/Blu-Ray stuff also. It's that time of year and Apple is announcing tons of new stuff; should Betanews just ignore it all so people won't call them Mac fans? In case you haven't noticed ALL the tech sites are reporting on this stuff. Sounds like you just hate Apple and want to complain about it.
Score: 0
|They must have another user.
(heh)
Score: 0
|I heard there was some Apple-centric convention going on this week? What was it called? :)
Score: 0
|Yep, I do hate MACs and that is part of it.
I hate most MAC users that are to stupid to stand up for the high priced junk and tell them NO.
Score: 0
|Unix is far superior to Windows in every area but unfortunately PowerPC hardware's performance sucks. AMD Athlon64 and Opteron CPU's (both dual core and single core) have been significantly faster than PowerPC G5 for quite some time. Intel on the other hand has concentrated on clock speed, not efficiency and apparently Intel STILL has significant current leakage in the newest 65nm Pentium 4 CPU's.
Personally I don't know why Intel is so slow to move to the Pentium M architecture on both desktop PC's and Intel desktop Macs.
Score: 0
|MACLUG?
I hear there are almost enough users to vote for a president too.
haha!
:-P
Score: 0
|Two words:
MAcWorld Conference. Kind of like CES, or the various DevCons, but for Apple/Mac-centric.
I believe this was stated in just about each of the articles covering the conference.
Helps to read once in a while. ;)
Score: 0
|lmao.
Nice.
Score: 0
|Mac hates you back and you will never own one.
Score: 0
|And in other news, Steve Joobs has announced that starting in June of '06, all iMacs will be running a modified version of Windows XP entitled Mac OS XI.
"This version of the OS is what we really have wanted all along. Good speed, stable and something with a million, gazillion applications on it. Not to mention some of the most complete development platforms around." quipped Steve Woznyuuk.
More news to follow at 11. ;-)
Score: 0
|Haha.
Sadly, you would have been closer if you had said Win2k. I've tested XP 32bit for about a dozen games vs my Win2k box, and it was around 30% slower at everything. XP 64bit might be good if you have a 64bit processor, but in the 32bit realm Win2k seems to be the fastest windows.*
*ofcourse, most games don't support 98SE or WinNT now.
Score: 0
|I can't comment on speed, but XP seems more stable than W2K, although most people would probably disagree with me.
Score: 0
|Not me, I find XP to be much more refined and stable than 2000. It feels just as fast if not faster too (after turning off the garbage like Luna and the themes service of course).
Score: 0
|It feel just as fast, but it's not. It's about 30% slower.
I actually thought it was performing better until I physically timed it for tasks and recorded framerates.
People seem to think XP is more stable, but I must have got a s*** copy then since I'd never call XP "stable". :P
That was one of the complaints though - XP installs vary greatly, and reinstalling often creates or fixes problems.
Score: 0
|I'm so used to not having to reboot since I've gotten Win2k. I installed AV/Firewall(avast/kerio) without rebooting, and it configured fine - though it does want to reboot so that it can ensure that it runs and notify nummy-nuts if something is wrong.
Win2k has a lot of flaws by default, but XP has more in my opinion. Several months ago I started modifying Win2k with a few XP system files, and the result has been a machine that hibernates instantly and never needs rebooting( and has yet to degrade in performance).
Score: 0
|Who cares?
Score: 0
|Millions, actually.
Score: 0
|Can't believe I'm saying this but I actually do. As of late I have to say that Apple has sparked my curiosity of their OS. My curiosity is about to give way as it did with Linux. I have to say that I would like to have a Mac (even if it's nothing but a mini).
Score: 0
|I bought a Mini. Its great! Keep the XP machine around for games though.
Score: 0
|Too bad too... I wanted to upgrade my rig, but I'd have to buy a whole new unit.
It's be nice if they could offer some component upgrades... swap out the mainboard/CPU/RAM, leave everything else.
Even at only half the price it'd be hard to get me *not* to buy it.
Score: 0
|First Apple ditched their GUI OS and went to a Linux OS. Now they're ditching the Motorola processor and going with Intel.
Apple's Metamorphosis to the PC is now complete.
Score: 0
|Get me a current Retail Mac OSX 10.4.4 installation CD.
I'll throw it on my Dell and tell ya if yer right.
Score: 0
|actually, it was unix... and it was heavily modified.
Score: 0
|Actually, it was FreeBSD, and yes, it was heavily modified.
Score: 0
|Just had to say it huh, now you got me curious.
Score: 0
|From the looks of it, it won't ship until February? So we won't see any copies online for a bit yet, I'd wager.
Still, as soon as one of those puppies ends up on the usenet I am doing 3 things:
Grabbing it.
Trying to (and likely failing to) install it on my Dell GX520.
Trying to, and possibly succeeding in installing it on my Dual G5 Mac workstation. (After doing a hefty backup because after the problems I had with 10.4.3, I'm quite certain, success or failure, that I will want to go back to the 10.4.3...now that I actually have it working well.)
Score: 0
|FreeBSD is UNIX :P
Score: 0
|Hmm, when it comes out I may just have to snap up a copy and try it ot myself.
Score: 0
|Both are flavors of POSIX, if you want to get technical.
Score: 0
|LMMFAO "POSIX". Oh that made my day.
EDIT: The good ole' days back in Ohio making fun of Unix. LOL
Score: 0
|What? POSIX is not an operating system, it's a set of standards for running UNIX software. BSD which I'm sure you know stands for Berkely Systems Distribution, is a true UNIX. FreeBSD is derived from it and AT&T system V. Linux on the other hand is a clone written from the ground up and was originally based on Minix which was also a clone written from scratch. Certainly FreeBSD has changed a great deal over the years but so has Windows XP, but I do believe XP is still Windows is it not?
Score: 0
|FreeBSD is *NOT* Unix. It is Unix *LIKE*.
FreeBSD is a fork of 4.4BSD (as are OpenBSD, and NetBSD) which was Unix until AT&T forced the BSD folks to remove several (seven I think) core files from 4.3BSD.
Score: 0
|Sorry... both (hell, all *nix clones) are Operating systems based (loosely? some more so than others...) on the POSIX standards.
It's like trying to tell someone NovellDOS(OpenDOS...DrDOS...etc) is MSDOS. Close, but not quite. Windows XP isn't WIndows 3.1. Hell, it ain't even the same OS as Windows 2000. Not even close.
Are you saying they should call it Unix FreeBSD, Unix Minix, Unix BSD, ad infinatum?
The only reason Windows keeps putting the word "Windows" in each of it's releases is due to marketing, not because they're all the "same OS".
Score: 0
|OMG, Mac OS X is not Mac OS because it's not the same as Mac OS 8!! Call the press!
LOL, if you are going to sit and nitpick every little detail than everything is nothing. Have fun, I've better things to do. FreeBSD is unix but if you want to call it POSIX or an OS loosely based on 1's and 0's feel free.
Score: 0
|Nice, now all I need to get one is $1300.
Score: 0
|