Bah, just when Catherine was top of the line, Steve Jobs released the (naffly named imo) MacBook Pro.

[url]www.apple.com[/url] or [url]www.apple.com/uk[/url] for me.

It's just a good job it doesn't come in 12" and it's also more than I could've afforded, so I don't feel too put out

Looks snazzy though - everything claims to be much faster (not too hard seeing as though my powerbook only has a G4 processor) so that's nice too.

I like the quote at the top of the page.

"What's an intel chip doing in a Mac? A whole lot more than it's ever done in a PC."

heh..

[quote=Apple (uk)]What's an intel chip doing in a mac? A whole lot more than it's ever done in a PC.[/quote]

I'd hardly call that a good advertising line, its put me off the idea completely and made me think that Apple are too opinionated. They really need to rethink their advertising these days... it's not getting any better.

It doesn't mean it's not true though

I have to agree with them, though. This merger is a VERY good thing in my opinion. Macs will definetly take full advantage of intel's technology, especially when all the parts are made and manufactured to optimise on that technology.

I'd be sold on macs if I weren't a gamer. Same with linux.

JediKirby

/me wants


I'd try and put windows on the notebook hah

I though so too, but after a few days of OSX, I'll never go back. If I want games, I drag out my mega drive.

Yeah, OS X is sweet, I almost wish I would have waited to get my laptop for one of these...

Did they have to switch to Intel when they got the 2-buttons mouse? The old processor couldn't handle the extra stress...

No, that doesn't...but the fact that PC still holds ~85 percent of the market share does.

All in all, it's a good move, but I think it's funny that they believe these processors to be so fast when they're really not when it comes to dual-cores. Grab an X2 and put it in there...well then you'd have a wasted X2 instead of a wasted Intel. Nevermind, keep the dual-Yonahs Apple.

Whatever it is, it's gotta be faster than a G4 though

OMG MACS ARE INFORIOR TO PCS!!!!!111


>.>
<.<

DAMN RIGHT LOLLERCOFFERS

<<

The question is, will the next Max OS be PC-compatible! eh?

It already works on PC, with a little patching...

I want a Macbook Pro.

Edit: 'Macbook'... I don't like the name, but I suppose Apple finally realized that's what all of the drunken nascar fans were calling 'them computer-things' anyway.

Do you actually have concept of what marketing is?

I'm kind of pissed off about this, I just bought my iMac G5.

It seems like it's less advertising and more insulting.

So you haven't seen the Intel ad that Apple did when they launched the P3/4 and Apple just showed how much quicker they were, it has all those guys in blue suits buring, it was very clever.
http://www.esm.psu.edu/Faculty/Gray/graphics/movies/toasted.mov 3.3mb

You must realise that Intel could really see the potential of the Intel chip, and more than likely have paid for the ad, intel really really like Apple, and are so glad that they can stretch their legs, whilst Micro$oft are limiting what they can and cant do, which is why AMD is Microsofts fav people at the moment,

Perhaps when they say the Pentium does more in a Mac than it ever did in a PC, they mean OS X is bloated? :p

I'm interested in getting a new Pentium-based Mac but this announcement pisses me off. Not because of the Mac thing, but because ATI produced drivers for the X1000-series for Mac but there still isn't any damned Linux support.

....what the hell is this?

Edit to give a little information to hurr tech company CEOs:
Microsoft doesn't restrict development or improvement at all. In fact, they go out of their way to support and embrace new standards being developed by hardware companies. It's in their best interests to do so.

Intel already had a chance to stretch their legs: It was called 'Itanium', and it was poorly-designed, expensive, painfully slow, power-hungry, hot and designed for server use. Even so, XP64 and Server 2k3 both support Itanium.
Microsoft is more strongly supporting AMD's solution because it is integrated into an existing and established platform (x86). AMD did this while Intel was still dragging its feet on a 64-bit desktop processor, claiming that consumers didn't want one. Even their adaptation of it (EM64T) is very slow compared to AMD x86-64.

And remember a few years ago, when NVIDIA and Microsoft were all buddy-buddy and working on the Xbox together? Microsoft released an entire version of DirectX (8.1) just to support new ATI hardware features.


Microsoft does not stifle innovation in the hardware market because it is not in their interests to do so; Apple is not freeing Intel from the desktop PC limitations because Apple is an insignificantly tiny portion of Intel's total market share; and even if Intel were to design a brand new processor, it would likely go the way of Itanium or PowerPC. That's about it.

Uh...you've got your facts oh-so-very wrong. MS still loves intel just as much as ever (HD-DVD anyone?) and they still don't have any such specialties for AMD only. Though, it is ironic--all the technologies implemented in windows to take advantage of Intel processor features end up being more efficiently used by AMDs.

maybe because more people use mac then linux?

[QUOTE=Dj Yoshi]Uh...you've got your facts oh-so-very wrong. MS still loves intel just as much as ever (HD-DVD anyone?) and they still don't have any such specialties for AMD only. Though, it is ironic--all the technologies implemented in windows to take advantage of Intel processor features end up being more efficiently used by AMDs.[/QUOTE]
Actualy you will find that Microsoft and Intel had a row about 18 months about chips and things, and they approached AMD to solve a problem, I will see If I can did up the article about it, Microsoft still love Intel, but not as much as they used too.

well, they do have data excution prevention for amd but not intel, right?

Desktop Linux and Mac are both sitting somewhere between 2.8-3.0%. No, OSX has driver support because ATI makes money from the Mac integration. And actually, come to think of it, the X1000-series Linux driver should be out next month around the same time these machines come out.

It's a part of EM64T. If you have one of the very latest Pentium 4 processors it is supported by Windows XP Service Pack 2.
Don't blame Microsoft for it. Intel was very, very late to market on x86-64 and hardware DEP.

ah ok, I haven't messed with a EM64T P4 yet

thought part of reason for going to Intel chips was availability. IBM making more chips for games consoles, instead of the chips that Apple has been using...

Loves Mac OS and not getting craploads of spyware and viri.

Amazingly enough I don't get any of that either.

Only I don't use OSX.

[QUOTE=Dj Yoshi]Amazingly enough I don't get any of that either.

Only I don't use OSX.[/QUOTE]

And apparently, that makes his liking of OS X wrong?

I like OSX too. I just hate it when people say they like it because of that reason. :p

These laptops look pretty interesting, but only because I'm a BSD fanatic. :p

[QUOTE=Dj Yoshi]I like OSX too. I just hate it when people say they like it because of that reason. :p[/QUOTE]

Sorry, but that's a perfectly legitimate reason to like OS X. I mean, I'm not saying they are invulnerable to them. But you don't get viruses or spyware, hardly EVER. I would say that if everything was ceteris paribus, and it came down to whether you choose a computer that is more vulnerable to viruses, or one that isn't, you would probably choose the one that isn't if you weren't too smart with computers (like you or I.)

Unfortunatly, hardly anything is actually ceteris paribus so it kind of makes my argument null and void :P. But my points remains that it's a legitimate reason for liking OS X. I'd rather not have to deal with spyware and viruses then occasionally do so. But if you are competent with computers, the argument is less attractive.

No, not exactly.

IBM made guarantees to Apple about power consumption, heat and speed. The G5 never made the cut, which is why it was never used in iBooks or Powerbooks. When Apple says the processor in the new Macbook Pro is 4 times faster they aren't joking.

IBM was able to produce the quantity of processors that Apple needed, but they were not able to produce the quality. Apple hardware has been lagging behind for a very long time. You know IBM has a problem with performance when a Pentium M is able to emulate the latest and greatest PowerPC G5 at almost full-speed.

I agree with Yoshi: that's a terrible reason to like an operating system.
If you're so dead-set on avoiding spyware and viruses you should be running barebones OpenBSD with the TMI. Because security is more important than everything else, right? You'd better ssh into your own box too hurr.

OSX is hardly bulletproof. Nor is any distribution of BSD, nor Linux, nor Windows, nor Macintosh OS System 7, nor BeOS nor anything else on the market. Security-wise, OSX doesn't provide anything that the other UNIX-like operating systems don't. OSX brings usability and polish to the UNIX world, but so does Solaris. OSX brings astonishing plug-and-play to the table, but so does [K]ubuntu.

You don't have to come up with a reason to justify your preferences. You just like it better, even though there are alternatives. That's good enough.

[Edited for clarity. I like MacOS X, and Linux, and Windows if it's not connected to the internet. Not pulling some one-solution-for-all thing here.]

But if you also want a legitimate GUI that is easy to pick up on, OS X would be a good choice. Don't pull the Matty logic which is that Linux or the alternative is something that 99% of people can pick up (although I can quote him of saying the contradictory). OS X provides better security than Windows, but still has an insanely user-friendly GUI that normal people could use.

I'm sure that when he said he loved OS X because of no viruses or spyware, I will assume that he meant just more than that. That's one feature that is very nice about OS X. If everything else was the same, and just security was on the line, you'd probably be right. But I'm assuming he likes OS X for more than that one reason.

*Edit* Just saw Jon's edit of his last post. Basically he said what I said in that last sentence *Edit*

Oh, well so if its a crappy reason, Its still a reason to use a certain OS. Just a reason, just like wanting to play games is a reason, but not the only reason... i like having something that is more secure but easier for certain people to learn and use. By certain people I mean by those like my dad who have no clue what they are doing on a computer.


I wasn't sure what the all the reasons for going to intel chips, that was one that I had heard for awile.

*shrugs*

oh and I'm not a "he"

Except you pay money for games...not for security. Unless you buy into the whole "Norton actually works" crock.

The notebooks are out in february, but those iMac intels are out now - same price as before.