Results tagged “Intel” from kwc blog

According to Adobe's Intel-Mac transition FAQ, you may want to delay your upgrade to the Intel iMacs. You may also want to save up a bit more $$$ for the switch. Adobe will not be releasing Universal Binaries for it's current application versions (e.g. CS2). You will have to wait until their next release to get Intel support and, presumably, that upgrade won't be free. You can still run CS2 on the new Intel Macs, but you won't get the performance upgrade you were planning on. Of course, you could always get good Intel performance by running Photoshop on Windows ;) ...

New Apple laptops


Intel dual-core Apple laptops, $1999+, and Intel dual-core iMacs. Maybe one of these days I'll finally pickup a Mac... or maybe after I recover from the purchase of my TV. Also cool to see Apple embracing video blogging and podcasting with iLife '06. An interesting tidbit from the announcement was that Apple sold 14 million iPods last quarter. That's a whole lotta white earbuds.

Note that at this time, the homepage is still advertising the "new iMac G5" and "new Powerbooks." Hope they didn't produce too many of those.

update: has finally updated with the new products

Mac-ers, this is your chip


Anandtech has benchmarked a Yonah sample against an Athlon x86-64. Why should you care? Well, Yonah is probably the chip that Apple will be using for it's Intel-based machines, so you may want to cozy up with the review a bit and bond with it's stats. The benchmarks have another important meaning: they give credence to all the rumors flying about that Apple will be launching it's first Macintel product in January.

Yonah is a dual-core 2.0Ghz processor and should be a good match for OS X. It doesn't beat out AMD's Athlon dual-core 2.0Ghz processor, but it should consume a lot less power, which will be save your battery life as well as prevent lap burns.

One more Macintel followup


To clarify some questions that people had:

After Jobs' presentation, Apple Senior Vice President Phil Schiller addressed the issue of running Windows on Macs, saying there are no plans to sell or support Windows on an Intel-based Mac. "That doesn't preclude someone from running it on a Mac. They probably will," he said. "We won't do anything to preclude that."

However, Schiller said the company does not plan to let people run Mac OS X on other computer makers' hardware. "We will not allow running Mac OS X on anything other than an Apple Mac," he said.

The product that I (as a PC user) will be paying attention to is the Mac mini. It has the price point most seductive to traditional PC users, and it's about to get the horsepower that we are accustomed to. Take the Mac mini, a little bit of wireless USB, and you get a pretty hot little apartment-friendly computer.



I wanted to do a quick post as to why this makes a whole lotta sense on Apple's part.

A couple years ago, Apple was pretty close to shifting over to Intel. Instead, it decided to place it's bets with the G5, hoping that IBM would deliver. IBM hasn't, and Apple is probably getting tired of having to liquid cool or otherwise come up with clever cooling solutions for its product. Apple's shift to Intel is also probably a clear signal that IBM isn't anywhere close to delivering the oft-desired G5 PowerBook, which brings up (perhaps) the most important statistic:

53% of computer sales last month were laptops

The Apple laptop line, in terms of performance, has stagnated due to a lack of a top-of-the-line processor -- iLife applications like iPhoto and Garageband seriously suffer.

Apple does have to suffer the inevitable price comparisons, but the net effect should be that Apple nullifies hardware as a major purchase decision point (one they were losing on), which will leave a purely software comparison -- given the Longhorn screenshots I've seen, Apple is likely to do quite well if that's how they can get buyers to choose.