Did shortages force Apple to skip other Intel models?
By Marc Perton 
posted Jan 12th 2006 12:00PM
posted Jan 12th 2006 12:00PM
They're still partying over at the Moscone, and Paul Otellini's probably still trying to get out of that clean-room spacesuit, but it's never too early to let loose with another round of Apple rumors, especially when they have to do with not-yet-released Intel models. Cult of Mac's Leander Kahney is claiming that, according to "an old friend, who is very highly placed in the Apple world," several Intel models were cut from the lineup due to a shortage of Core Duo chips. The source advised Kahney not to buy a MacBook Pro, and hinted that the dropped models were "much cooler" than even a 12-inch MacBook. So, will we see an Intel-based Mac mini media center? A Core Duo Mac tablet? Let the wild speculation begin! Let's just leave the lawyers out of it, mkay?
[Via TUAW]
sounds promosing. but, you never know. we are just going to have to wait.
http://groups.myspace.com/engadgetreaders
Yeah, I'm not really buying this rumor. Is Apple working on even cooler products? Certainly. But, I can't imagine they were going to launch MacIntels replacements for all their existing products all at one time.
the only things i can think of that could make it "much cooler" would be:
-a Quad core...as if that's even possible for laptops this century
-or a tablet
i mean it has to b a tablet right??...what else can it be a HD Dvd burner (woop de do...what am i goin to do w/ that)
I guess you can get Intel out of the box, but you just can't get the box out of Intel...
I mean, just look at this thing. Is it me or does it just look like any other Windows PC out there?? It's just ugly! Even the name "MacBook Pro" sounds like something you find on the back pages of PC Magazine. wtf? /pg.
well at least we should expect more laptops soon. There's no way that apple is replacing their 12, 15, and 17 inch powerbooks with one 15" MacBook Pro model.
Maybe they'll come out with an ipod laptop......
Of course there is a shortage of Intel chips for Apple because all of those "Dull little Boxes" are 97% of the market so Apple should only get the crumbs that the big boys in the computer world have not eaten up
Who do you think Intel likes better Apple or Dell (Plue every other Intel PC partner on Earth)?
Paul, it's the same case and form-factor as the Powerbook G4 - what are you talking about!?
#3, you do realize that there's almost no change, asthetically speaking, from the Powerbook line to the MacBook Pro, right? @.@
I was totally disaapointed for not having a tablet powerbook. Still hoping.
Yazan
Shortages like with PowerPC chips?
History repeating?
Anyone here comment yet on the fact that the Mac Intel Core Duos are NOT 64 bit. They're 32 bit only.
That's a bit odd don't you think? Software, whether we like it or not, is heading into that direction. Yet, for some odd reason, Apple decided on skipping the 64 bitness.
This MacBook Pro is the first IntApple machine because it fills a gap at the top of Apple's line, a desktop replacement for the power user. It uses Intel's hottest CPU, the $1000 two-core Duo which massively outperforms anything Apple could build into a 17" laptop chassis using PowerPC silicon.
They're still selling regular PPC Powerbooks and will be for a few months yet but getting this machine out the door now saves them from losing high-roller graphics artists and video editors to PC-based laptop solutions. Time later to roll out Centrino laptops in 12" and 15" flavours with long battery life.
Myself I'd like to see Apple take Intel's low-power CPU capabilities and build a subnotebook, a 10" display machine for the regular traveller, the video journalist, the off-the-beaten-track user. Something rugged supporting OS/X, weighing less than a kilo and with a decent battery life could be a real winner for them.
Well when they initially released the Aluminum models, the 15" came first then the 12" and 17" followed. In any case if they could it wouldn't have been a bad idea to replace those two models at the same time. My 12" Powerbook is aging fast so hopefully they replace it soon and I'll be there to pick one of those up.
Brandon, actually the 12" and 17" came out first, and the 15" languished in TiBook land for several months before getting an update.
Thew day there'll be an Apple tablet, I guess I'll be a priest...
Amen
"getting this machine out the door now saves them from losing high-roller graphics artists and video editors to PC-based laptop solutions."
Are you high? There are zero Pro apps out that are Universal builds. No high-roller ANYthing in their right mind would impede their own work by being an early-adopter, especially something of this magnitude.
no one really comments on it being stepped down to a 32-bit when they were already at 64 why is that?
"Anyone here comment yet on the fact that the Mac Intel Core Duos are NOT 64 bit. They're 32 bit only.
That's a bit odd don't you think? Software, whether we like it or not, is heading into that direction. Yet, for some odd reason, Apple decided on skipping the 64 bitness."
It's not odd at all. Intel's new Yonah chips are leaps ahead of what AMD (who has the only "64bit" mobile chips right now) has. Plus, Intel was a better choice because they can develop the chipsets for Apple. Intel is on track to release their 64bit mobile chip (named Merom for now) in October. I'm sure Apple will update their line of systems for the new chips when they become availible.
The Imac took a step down from 64 to 32 bit with the Intel switch, but its now 2-3 times faster with the dual core. (At least according to Apple) The Powerbook G4's were, and still are, 32 bit.
No kidding about 64 bit. What where they thinking? IMHO, the reason they went with Intel instead of AMD is for supplier strength, but if this rumor is true, then that fell through, didn't? They SOOO should have went with an Athlon64.
Wow, lots of "why would I bother installing crappy old windows on this" comments.
Why? Because some of us need or want programs that for whatever reason aren't availible for OSX. I routinely use SolidWorks and Matlab amoung others, and I enjoy a good game from time to time. None of these things runs on OSX. Sad for me. But being able to use OSX for word processing/internet etc (ie: probably most of my time spent on the computer) and then being able to switch to a MS OS for other things on the same machine would rock! Ease up fanboys and realize that there are legit applications for MS despite its shortcommings.
That true #19. Good points.
by the way shouldnt the G5 then be a more advanced processor being that its 64-bit? By the way is osx 32/64 bit?
"No kidding about 64 bit. What where they thinking? IMHO, the reason they went with Intel instead of AMD is for supplier strength, but if this rumor is true, then that fell through, didn't? They SOOO should have went with an Athlon64."
Two reasons probably. 1)AMD doesn't have the mobile chips that Intel does. When I see an OC'ed (with factory cooling) Intel MOBILE chip near AMD X2 performance, it scares me. 2)AMD doesn't make its own chipsets anymore. Intel can design and produce chipsets directly for Apple meaning they don't have to do it anymore freeing up a lot of R&D money for them.
Plus, by this summer Intel will release their new desktop chips which will be 64bit and by the fall their new mobile chips which will also be 64bit.
You do realise that in only a few applications does the transition to 64bit actually equal performance improvements yet....
faster is better despite the architecture, both are considerabley faster (and the powerbook was still 32 bit) and very few programs actually take advantage of the 64 bit processing anyway.
"Anyone here comment yet on the fact that the Mac Intel Core Duos are NOT 64 bit. They're 32 bit only."
Actually it's because the 64 bit version of the Core Duo (codename Merom) isn't ready yet. It won't be available until September, so expect another Macbook then...
You can relax now, I just ordered an 12" iBook for my little sister, so Upgrades are bound to be right around the corner :-)
#12: according to the intel pricelist*, the T2600, running 2.16Ghz is the top-end Yonah chip and it's $637 in quantities of 1000. The T2500 (2GHz) is $423, and it's the one used in the iMac 20", while the 17" gets the T2400 (1.86Ghz) is $294.
in short, you're inflating prices by 2-3x.
"getting this machine out the door now saves them from losing high-roller graphics artists and video editors to PC-based laptop solutions."
Final Cut is Universal, but FCP isn't and won't be until March. Photoshop? Same thing. Aperture is UB, but still has some things to work out. The inclusion of Front Row and the camera, I think, make this a laptop aimed squarely at early adopters; although it offers "Pro Power", it's probably going to get snapped up by the stereotypical Apple-buying metrosexual.
#22:
Mac OSX is and it isn't; I can't remember where I read it, but 64-bits doesn't represent a huge performance jump for most OSX processes, and can actually slow it down.
Also: 04/01/2006 is Apple's 30th Anniversary. I'd expect something new then.
*found here: http://www.intel.com/intel/finance/pricelist/
#12: according to the intel pricelist*, the T2600, running 2.16Ghz is the top-end Yonah chip and it's $637 in quantities of 1000. The T2500 (2GHz) is $423, and it's the one used in the iMac 20", while the 17" gets the T2400 (1.86Ghz) is $294.
in short, you're inflating prices by 2-3x.
"getting this machine out the door now saves them from losing high-roller graphics artists and video editors to PC-based laptop solutions."
Final Cut is Universal, but FCP isn't and won't be until March. Photoshop? Same thing. Aperture is UB, but still has some things to work out. The inclusion of Front Row and the camera, I think, make this a laptop aimed squarely at early adopters; although it offers "Pro Power", it's probably going to get snapped up by the stereotypical Apple-buying metrosexual.
#22:
Mac OSX is and it isn't; I can't remember where I read it, but 64-bits doesn't represent a huge performance jump for most OSX processes, and can actually slow it down.
Also: 04/01/2006 is Apple's 30th Anniversary. I'd expect something new then.
*found here: http://www.intel.com/intel/finance/pricelist/
"getting this machine out the door now saves them from losing high-roller graphics artists and video editors to PC-based laptop solutions."
Not to mention that any "high-roller" in anything would switch to a "pc-based..solution". Switching to a PC is anything but a solution, it's opening a big can of problems. Read this article: "Why Pros Use Mac":
http://kenrockwell.com/apple/why-pros-use-mac.htm
sorry 'bout the doubling and awful formatting; I didn't submit them and am slightly worried it's due to the "new" comment backend...
Re: 29. Pros go where the capability is and Apple just didn't have the CPU power in a laptop/desktop replacement machine, not without going dual-CPU and that way lies madness. Someone driving PhotoShop for a living can do it all on Apples or PCs and the fear was that they were going to look at the premium price charged for desktop Apple kit and maybe decide to stick with MS and PC architecture next budget round after buying a high-end PC laptop instead.
Apple needed to fill that hole and soon so they took the opportunity to roll out the first IntApple to meet the pent-up demand of Applistas who wanted some serious CPU power under the hood of a laptop and an OS/X front end. Right now they've got inventory of lower-end PowerBooks to shift before the big switchover but the Mac Book Duo has no direct PPC-based competition in the existing lineup. I think it needs more memory though.
The CPU I was thinking of was the Pentium 955 Extreme Edition which is Intel's highest-end CPU at 1000 bucks a pop in quantity, not the lower-cost 1.67GHz Core Duo, sorry about that. It's getting difficult to keep all of Intel's offerings separate in my mind these days.
#23 >> "By the way is osx 32/64 bit?"
The OS and most applications are 32-bit. Since Panther, OS X has had a 64-bit virtual memory manager that enables it to use more than 4GB of physical memory, but a 32-bit app can never get more than 4GB at a time.
Tiger does support full-on 64-bit applications, but I believe the bulk of the OS code is still 32-bit.
Zer0Her0
You are correct. Thanks for fixing my error.