In a story for the Washington Post “It Takes a Discerning Eye to See Through Laptop Lingo” Rob Pegoraro explores the Dell and HP practice of shipping laptops “with batteries that will expire before you can finish watching a movie.” Read More…
The venerable PowerBook has been with us since 1991 when Apple released the PowerBook 100 (with the help of Sony) and Xerox PARC veteran and long-time Apple Fellow Alan Kay coined the term. Apple trademarked “PowerBook” shortly thereafter further solidifying the term in the modern technical vernacular. Apple launched their consumer notebook in 1999 and called it the “iBook” to differentiate it from its more expensive brother, the PowerBook.
As the iBook gained in “power” over the years Cupertino had a difficult time differentiating between their entry-level iBook and professional PowerBook offerings causing a lot of hand-wringing inside Apple’s marketing department. What exactly is the difference between an iBook and a PowerBook these days anyway? Monitor spanning? Puh-lease.
Click through for some of my suggestions…
In his latest column for PBS More Shoes: There’s More to the Apple/Intel Deal Than Even Bob Thought At First, Robert X. Cringely insists that Apple’s Video iPod is a reality and that HP and Intel will be involved:
“The whole Apple/Intel deal gets curiouser and curiouser. I wonder if Apple even intends to go forward with the changeover? My guess is they will, but only if Intel complies fully with more unannounced terms of the deal. As I have written in previous columns, Apple is working on its own movie download service (HD movies at that!), and I believe that service and ClickStar are one in the same,” Cringely writes. “Good pricing is not enough reward for Steve Jobs kicking IBM in the corporate groin at the behest of Intel. Let’s guess, then, that not only will ClickStar morph into ITMS, but that Intel’s ‘digital home entertainment devices’ will be ITMS-compliant. No Microsoft, no Real, just H.264, FairPlay, and something behind Door Number Three… Get ready for the Video iPod, which will presumably be available from more than just Apple. HP is already on board and these clues suggest Intel is likely there, too.”
Read the full article at PBS.org.
Back to the “PowerBook” name debate again… PowerPager ‘Reboot’ writes with the best PowerBook name replacement yet. Say hello to “Xbook:”
I agree to let the “Power-names” go away with the PowerPC cpu’s. Why not use what Apple has already started: “X-names”? It also relates nicely to their outstanding OS (which after all will be almost the only thing seperating it form the Wintel world). We all know Xserve is a server so why not let Xstation be a workstation and Xbook be a hi-end notebook? I’m amazed that Apple hasn’t done so already, but hey…maybe they have saved it for this very moment.
In related news, Charles W. Moore, opines that The PowerBook Doesn’t Need A Name Change:
just at the point when Apple laptops are going to have the most powerful processors in portable Mac history would be a particularly inappropriate time to jettison the PowerBook name. But, I hasten to add, raw processor power is only one of many elements that make a PowerBook such a powerful and delightful tool. The real, practical power of a PowerBook is that it packs the capability of a desktop computer into an astonishingly compact and portable form factor. Not the full equivalent of a contemporary high-end desktop of course, but usually in the ballpark of a two or three-year old high-end desktop, which is plenty enough for most of us.
Charles is even more vested in the name “PowerBook” than we are here at the “Power”Page – he writes for PowerBookCentral, after all…
What’s your take?
ArsTechnica’s Jon Stokes shares some insight on Apple’s switch to Intel processors and the company’s dysfunctional relationship with IBM and Motorola:
As I said in my previous post on the 970MP and FX unveiling, the new PowerPC processor announcements from IBM raise a number of questions about timing, like, when will these parts be available? how long has IBM been sitting on them? why the apparently sudden leap in performance per watt on the same process after a year with so little improvement?
The announcements also raise serious questions about why, if these great parts were just around the bend, did Apple really jump ship for Intel? Was it performance, or performance per watt, as Jobs claimed in his keynote speech, or were there other, unmentioned factors at work?
I have some answers to those questions, and I’ll pass them along below. However, those answers come complete with their own vested interests, so feel free to interpret them as you will.
RoughlyDrafted: Tech columnists love to rehash old stories and suggest the future will play out just like a vaguely similar event from the past. But as old stories are retold, they become celebrated legends that eventually grossly distort what actually happened.
PC Magazine: “In his latest column for PC Magazine, John Dvorak envisions a scenario where spyware and viruses emerge on the Mac platform. Dvorak believes PC users will inevitably find a way of installing Mac OS X for Intel on their generic machines. As a result, Apple will likely release a version of Mac OS X for PC users, rather than lose sales to piracy. “To many Mac aficionados the uniqueness of the platform will be lost forever [...] The big problem that Mac users will have to face is the emergence of virus code and spyware aimed at them.” eWEEK columnist Jason Brooks shares Dvorak’s view on Mac OS X for PCs. He believes Apple will eventually release “OS X Unbound” — a version of its operating system for PCs. Apple will then face several issues, such as cannibalization of Apple’s hardware sales.”
Surfette: Children have nearly cured me of swearing. In public. But sometimes only profanity will serve. Yesterday’s performance by Apple Computer comes to mind. This post is designed for non-technology journalists who continue to hold bloggers at an arm’s distance. I’m here to recommend you become familiar with the performance of a company where the formerly fruity aroma has grown overripe.
Ben Apple’s perfomance stinks and Ben Franklin is still right. No, I’m not talking about the gasp-inducing confirmation by Apple Founder Steve Jobs that the company will in fact use Intel chips in Macs. I’m talking about the fact that even though CNET broke the story of this major trade secret, a secret so hot that John Paczkowski lead his blog this morning with the headline, “Wells Fargo? Yes, I’d like to stop payment on a check,” not a single peep has been heard about any Apple plans to sue CNET or Reporter Stephen Shankland for revealing a trade secret. Read More…
Apple made the announcement this week that they’d be transitioning the chipset at the heart of the Mac again, and the entire Mac community seems to be wailing and gnashing their collective teeth. It’s the end, they say. What will we do? How about relax? Read More…