From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

I used Macs all my life until I got to college and now that I am about
to graduate, I am thinking about buying an Intel Mac while I still have
the student discount. AppleInsider.com says that new iBooks with Core
Solo chips might be out this month but I wonder how long a Core Solo
chip would be useful. After Apple introduced 64-bit G5 towers, it
seems like moving to a 32-bit Intel architecture was a step back. I've
heard it rumored that when Intel towers come out, they will use 64-bit
Intel chips. That makes me wonder if the 32-bit Core chips are just transitional. The reason I would wait for an inexpensive Intel laptop
instead of buying the G4 iBook is because G4 support will eventually be dropped. But if Intel is going to be moving (back) toward 64-bit
chips, is buying a Core Solo computer going to be a waste?

-Brandon R

--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

I am thinking about buying an Intel Mac while I still have the student discount.

The Intel iMac is a phenomenal deal, the Mac Mini is not unless you
want the form factor. The MacBook Pro is a pricey but high-end
notebook.

That makes me wonder if the 32-bit Core chips are just transitional.

Yes, but everything is transitional in this industry. The real
question is whether you need 64-bit operations or more than 4GB of RAM.

The reason I would wait for an inexpensive Intel laptop instead of buying the G4 iBook
is because G4 support will eventually be dropped.

Waiting for the Intel iBook is a good move at this time. Even with one
core it should be almost three times faster than the G4. I own an
iBook G4. They are great notebooks but they are slow.

But if Intel is going to be moving (back) toward 64-bit chips, is buying a Core Solo
computer going to be a waste?

Unlikely. 64-bit Windows won't be common until Vista arrives in
volume, in Jan 2007. At around that time Intel will replace the Core
chips with 64-bit versions. So you are likely to wait until next
January if you want a 64-bit iBook, assuming Apple decides to release
one right away. And then there is the question of 64-bit software for
OS X. Developers are just getting over the port to Intel. They need
to focus on producing a new release to maintain revenue before they
think about another port to 64-bit Intel Macs.

So I think it is likely that the transition to 64-bit will be long and
drawn out, and a 32-bit Intel Mac, bought this spring or summer, will
give you good value for the money (ie: it will be too slow before
32-bit versus 64-bit becomes an issue). Assuming, of course, you do
not really need 64-bit applications. But if you did then you would
have probably already switched to AMD and Linux.

--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

I am thinking about buying an Intel Mac while I still have the student discount.

The Intel iMac is a phenomenal deal, the Mac Mini is not unless you
want the form factor. The MacBook Pro is a pricey but high-end
notebook.

I was actually thinking about an iMac but I don't really have the desk
space room for another desktop-only computer.

But if Intel is going to be moving (back) toward 64-bit chips, is buying a Core Solo
computer going to be a waste?

Unlikely. 64-bit Windows won't be common until Vista arrives in
volume, in Jan 2007. At around that time Intel will replace the Core
chips with 64-bit versions. So you are likely to wait until next
January if you want a 64-bit iBook, assuming Apple decides to release
one right away. And then there is the question of 64-bit software for
OS X. Developers are just getting over the port to Intel. They need
to focus on producing a new release to maintain revenue before they
think about another port to 64-bit Intel Macs.

I suppose you are right about a Core Solo iBook lasting a while but I
do think it's odd that you are basing all of that on the arrival of
Vista though. Do you think the introduction of Book Camp will cause
Mac and PC hardware to move along at a closer rate?

So I think it is likely that the transition to 64-bit will be long and
drawn out, and a 32-bit Intel Mac, bought this spring or summer, will
give you good value for the money (ie: it will be too slow before
32-bit versus 64-bit becomes an issue). Assuming, of course, you do
not really need 64-bit applications. But if you did then you would
have probably already switched to AMD and Linux.

Who says I haven't? Right now, I work part time as a programmer and do
some contract work too - for me, owning computers isn't an either/or
situation. :-)

I think I will go ahead and buy an Intel iBook when they come out. I
just think that Core is somewhat of a step back in a lot of ways. But hopefully new technologies will develop a lot faster than they did with
PPC chips.

--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

I suppose you are right about a Core Solo iBook lasting a while
but I do think it's odd that you are basing all of that on the
arrival of Vista though.

For better or worse the PC industry follows Microsoft, and 64-bit
Windows won't be common until Vista ships. That is a large part
of the reason why Intel can sell a 32-bit chip. AMD was shipping
64-bit chips for desktop computers two years ago, but Intel knows
that is a niche market until x86-64 Windows arrives.

Do you think the introduction of Boot Camp will cause
Mac and PC hardware to move along at a closer rate?

I think this would have happened with or without Boot Camp.
There is no reason for Apple to be behind the curve anymore,
and you can see that in the iMac and MacBook Pro. I think
with Boot Camp it's become clear that Apple is going after
the entire home PC market. Every PC manufacturer other
than Dell should be looking over their shoulder in fright.

for me, owning computers isn't an either/or situation. :-)

Well I'm married so for me there is an upper limit on the
number of computers my wife will tolerate :)

I think I will go ahead and buy an Intel iBook when they come out.
I just think that Core is somewhat of a step back in a lot of ways.

I agree, and it's Intel's own fault. AMD beat them to 64-bit and stole
that market. Intel realized they could take their time in that race,
and instead focused on mass market low-power chips. I think both
companies made good moves, and hopefully by next year everyone
will be selling low-power, mass-market, 64-bit chips. But as a
consequence, 32-bit chips will be with us for quite some time.

--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

For better or worse the PC industry follows Microsoft, and 64-bit
Windows won't be common until Vista ships. That is a large part
of the reason why Intel can sell a 32-bit chip. AMD was shipping
64-bit chips for desktop computers two years ago, but Intel knows
that is a niche market until x86-64 Windows arrives.

That is certainly true of Wintel machines where there is little hope
for hardware that isn't supported by Windows but Apple has remained
more independent. They are their own niche. Since Apple writes its
own OS, it isn't necessarily bound to the same trends. They can make
whatever hardware they want since they write the OS that runs on it. I
think the G5 is a fair example of that. What was going on in the
Windows world didn't matter much because even if the 64-bit version of
Windows was more prominent, there still wouldn't be any cross-over
between the two systems - you couldn't one OS on the other machine.

Do you think the introduction of Boot Camp will cause
Mac and PC hardware to move along at a closer rate?

I think this would have happened with or without Boot Camp.
There is no reason for Apple to be behind the curve anymore,
and you can see that in the iMac and MacBook Pro. I think
with Boot Camp it's become clear that Apple is going after
the entire home PC market. Every PC manufacturer other
than Dell should be looking over their shoulder in fright.

:-) I would be glad if Apple could take over a little more of the
market. It seems like there is enough interest if Apple could just
remedy a few problems. I think that moving to a POSIX-based OS (which
already has a lot of support in the business world) was a good step
toward a commercially marketable alternative to Windows.

I think I will go ahead and buy an Intel iBook when they come out.
I just think that Core is somewhat of a step back in a lot of ways.

I agree, and it's Intel's own fault. AMD beat them to 64-bit and stole
that market. Intel realized they could take their time in that race,
and instead focused on mass market low-power chips. I think both
companies made good moves, and hopefully by next year everyone
will be selling low-power, mass-market, 64-bit chips. But as a
consequence, 32-bit chips will be with us for quite some time.

I was shocked to find out that Core wasn't 64-bit. After AMD did so
well with 64-bit processors and even started putting them in laptops, I
figured that the new Macs would have been Intel's chance to push 64-bit
chips in a larger (but controlled) market, especially since the G5 had
already moved Macs in that direction. Instead, we ended up with
Intel's push to revitalize the Pentium M line. :-(

--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

In article <1144371861.984650.116970@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
bcr07548@creighton.edu wrote:

After Apple introduced 64-bit G5 towers, it
seems like moving to a 32-bit Intel architecture was a step back.

Not really - the mini and powerbook machines did not have 64 bit
processors in them before, so we got a lot more power. The G5 iMac did
have a 64 bit processor, but relatively few iMac customers put enough
RAM in them to see the differences.

The upcoming 64 bit chips from Intel are due late this year - September,
I am hearing, so I suspect that we will see them in desktop and perhaps
laptop macs at that time.

I've
heard it rumored that when Intel towers come out, they will use 64-bit
Intel chips. That makes me wonder if the 32-bit Core chips are just transitional.

Transitional in the sense that every chip is transitional. We are due
for a price drop on the Core Duo/Solo chips in May, IIRC, and we will
likely see new 64 bit Intel goodies with lots of speed bennies in
September, but many of us need a computer now.

My company, for example, is willing to buy a new laptop to replace my G4 today, but they are not willing to buy two (one now, and one in six
months). The core duo would be roughly four times faster for what I do
- lots of java, and on Intel we get the -server VM. The hypothetical September machines would tack on another 30% in speed at the same clock
rate, and likely another 10-20% in clock rates, so I might see a factor
of six over what I have now.

Is that worth waiting six months? Dunno. Have not decided.

The reason I would wait for an inexpensive Intel laptop
instead of buying the G4 iBook is because G4 support will eventually be dropped. But if Intel is going to be moving (back) toward 64-bit
chips, is buying a Core Solo computer going to be a waste?

It would not be a waste, if it did what you needed. If, on the other
hand, you really want the cookies from the faster chips, or a beefier
desktop system that can challenge a G5 quad, then you need to wait.

Look at the discount, decide what that is worth, and then look at the benefits of waiting.

Scott

--
Scott Ellsworth
scott@alodar.nospam.com
Java and database consulting for the life sciences
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

In article <scott-5EEEF5.16395607042006@news.west.cox.net>,
Scott Ellsworth <scott@alodar.com> wrote:

My company, for example, is willing to buy a new laptop to replace my G4 today, but they are not willing to buy two (one now, and one in six
months).

Could you get the budget item suspended for six months with a good
argument?

leo

--
<http://web0.greatbasin.net/~leo/>
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

In article
<1144371861.984650.116970@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
bcr07548@creighton.edu wrote:

I used Macs all my life until I got to college and now that I am about
to graduate, I am thinking about buying an Intel Mac while I still have
the student discount. AppleInsider.com says that new iBooks with Core
Solo chips might be out this month but I wonder how long a Core Solo
chip would be useful. After Apple introduced 64-bit G5 towers, it
seems like moving to a 32-bit Intel architecture was a step back. I've
heard it rumored that when Intel towers come out, they will use 64-bit
Intel chips. That makes me wonder if the 32-bit Core chips are just transitional. The reason I would wait for an inexpensive Intel laptop instead of buying the G4 iBook is because G4 support will eventually be dropped. But if Intel is going to be moving (back) toward 64-bit
chips, is buying a Core Solo computer going to be a waste?

-Brandon R

I have a 64 bit PowerMac Dual G5 at work, and _EVERY_ applications
I use is a 32 bit app. The majority of applications you will use
are 32 bits. Having a 64 bit processes for the sake of 64 bits
only helps the application that needs a huge amount of memory
either as virtual or a physical.

So ask yourself, are you going to be running an Oracle database
servicing 1000's of transactions/second on hundreds of gigabytes
of data?

Are you doing gene sequencing?

Are you doing nuclear simulations?

Maybe if you are rendering Shrek or Toy Story, then maybe 64 bits
will be good for you in the next few years.

Otherwise, most people, especially laptop users, will be perfectly
happy with a 32 bit CPU.

Bob Harris
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

In article <leo-3C3616.17153707042006@sn-indi.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
Leonard Blaisdell <leo@greatbasin.com> wrote:

In article <scott-5EEEF5.16395607042006@news.west.cox.net>,
Scott Ellsworth <scott@alodar.com> wrote:

My company, for example, is willing to buy a new laptop to replace my G4 today, but they are not willing to buy two (one now, and one in six months).

Could you get the budget item suspended for six months with a good
argument?

They would be quite willing to buy one now, or, If I tell them it is
worth waiting, to wait. They trust me to know whether the company is
best served by a major speed boost for next six months, or an even
bigger one come September, but slow hardware until then.

The decision is easy right now, because I like the screen real estate of
a 17" powerbook. Since there is no core duo 17" MacBook Pro just yet, I
can wait with a clear conscience.

Scott

--
Scott Ellsworth
scott@alodar.nospam.com
Java and database consulting for the life sciences
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

On Mon, 10 Apr 2006 20:15:17 -0500, Scott Ellsworth wrote
(in article <scott-BDBEBA.18151710042006@news.west.cox.net>):

The decision is easy right now, because I like the screen real estate of
a 17" powerbook. Since there is no core duo 17" MacBook Pro just yet, I
can wait with a clear conscience.

One thing that perplexed me was that the 15" MacBook Pro has fewer screen pixels than does the 15" PowerBook it replaced. I'm waiting for the 17" MacBook Pro but I will be strongly disappointed if it too reduces the screen pixel count.

--
James Leo Ryan ..... Austin, Texas ..... taliesinsoft@mac.com

--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

In article <0001HW.C0607D14001BC842F0284530@news.supernews.com>,
TaliesinSoft <taliesinsoft@mac.com> wrote:

On Mon, 10 Apr 2006 20:15:17 -0500, Scott Ellsworth wrote
(in article <scott-BDBEBA.18151710042006@news.west.cox.net>):

The decision is easy right now, because I like the screen real estate of
a 17" powerbook. Since there is no core duo 17" MacBook Pro just yet, I can wait with a clear conscience.

One thing that perplexed me was that the 15" MacBook Pro has fewer screen pixels than does the 15" PowerBook it replaced. I'm waiting for the 17" MacBook Pro but I will be strongly disappointed if it too reduces the screen pixel count.

I thought the resolution of the last 15" G4 was 1440 x 900, same as the MacBook Pro.

Greg B.

--
Actual e-mail address is gbuchner and I'm located at mn.rr.com
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113