or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › New PowerBooks tomorrow.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

New PowerBooks tomorrow. - Page 8  

post #281 of 874
post #282 of 874
so should i buy a 12 inch pbook, or wait? i need portability!!! something now until g5 revb... then i'm in 64 bit land!

anyone have any idea FOR REAL when the 15 incher is coming out?
"The crickets and the rust-beetles scuttled among the nettles of the sage thicket. "Vamanos, amigos," he whispered, and threw the busted leather flintcraw over the loose weave of the saddlecock....
"The crickets and the rust-beetles scuttled among the nettles of the sage thicket. "Vamanos, amigos," he whispered, and threw the busted leather flintcraw over the loose weave of the saddlecock....
post #283 of 874
Here is what I say about this thread:
DIE! DIE! DIE!

PC Free Since 1999

"Don't copy that floppy!"
PC Free Since 1999

"Don't copy that floppy!"
post #284 of 874
Quote:
Regarding the veracity of the IBM numbers: those numbers are from 9 months ago and not on shipping product. They most likely are based on estimates from simulation.

Would it make sense, though, that IBM, of all organizations, would be off by 50% or more in their estimates? IBM is typically very conservative in their estimates, and it stands to reason that the power consumption would be less, not more than the estimate.

As I mentioned in the iMac thread, the POWER 4 consumes 100 watts. Would it make sense that the 970, a chip which is based on the POWER 4's design but much simpler (one core instead of two, no 32MB on chip L3 cache, no larger-than-normal elements for increased reliability), would consume just three watts shy of the POWER 4?
post #285 of 874
Ok! Ok! You got me! I'll admit I am wrong!

In fact the EETimes numbers are absolutely made up... they didn't want anyone to know... so they came up with a odd number like 97 instead of 50 or 100. One guy guessed a number between 1 and 10 and then another guy did the same and they combined these numbers to make the number that they printed in the article. They didn't talk to IBM at all to get those numbers. Amazingly, no matter how wild those numbers are... no retraction was issued... guess no one at IBM has seen those numbers...

Also, I found out that the pre-production from simulation numbers that IBM released a nine months ago are, get this, exactly correct. It seems like the Cadence design tool that IBM used for the 970 is frighteningly dead on when it comes to power consumption numbers!!!

Actually, the Cadence SW was wrong. IBm was conservative and the numbers for the parts are less than what was in the pre-production document.

Also, I found out that Steve Jobs has had a change of heart. The 970 is perfect for running in the new 15 inch PB and there is currently production running, but since he's been told that he's got a big ego and has to release EVERY neat new toy, he's going to save the fastest laptop on the planet release for Greg.

Wait... he wants to save Greg's ego too... so they're just going to quietly release it one Tuesday next month...

And, oh yea!, the nine fans are needed in the PowerMac because nine fans are QUIETER than one. Even though they had fanless designs in the Cube and a VERY quiet fan in a iMac, they decided to use 9 fans because every computer buyer things fan tech is SOOO cool. And they used the largest heat sinks I have ever seen and the most free airflowing case I have ever seen just by chance!

( Note: I too seriously believe the nine fan design would be quieter than one fan; however, that does not negate the fact that the parts are hot and Apple had to design a special cooling system for the devices. )

But believe whatever you want... it doesn't matter to me!
post #286 of 874
Oh, boy. Apparently, it does matter to you, otherwise you wouldn't have gone off on that rant...

Do you have a cogent response, preferably something that doesn't involve childish ridicule?

48.5 watts seems a hell of a lot more reasonable to me than 97 does, given the original estimate of 42 watts, albeit at a slower speed. If the 97 watt figure is true, then IBM's got some SERIOUS problems with the 970 design and their design process, and there would be a boatload of IBM engineers looking for new jobs...

Think about it:

POWER 4: 2 cores, 32MB L3 cache, larger elements = 100W.
PPC 970: 1 core, no L3 cache, normal elements = 97W.

Does that really make sense to you?

By the way-- the nine fan thing is a red herring. Get over it. Only four are used to cool the processors, and as you admitted yourself, the thing is designed to be a quiet running machine, so larger heat sinks & more fans aren't really surprising, are they?
post #287 of 874
Actually, it really doesn't matter to me... I just think it's funny that people basically try to convince other people that their reading of the tea leaves is correct...

I too am surprised by the 97 watt numbers. However, those numbers had to come from somewhere and most likely they came from an IBM engineer/marketing rep at the WWDC. If they had been misquoted or misstated to such a degree, well, I think that IBM would have asked for a retraction by now.

Of course they could be wrong - but speculating on that is idle speculation since neither of us can offer up proof to the contrary. I'm just taking the numbers at face value.

You choose to look at the published documents by IBM. I think those documents are very informative; however, I do give the chance that they are incorrect on power consumption. I'm taking the latest numbers - you're taking the older numbers - it's just what we choose to believe.

Your comparison on the 970 and the Power4 numbers make sense - I'd also love to see another test. But again I just choose to believe what the EETimes is saying until I hear otherwise. Again believe what you will...

I also do not think that the fan design is a "red herring." I've been an engineer and a program manager for 17 years. In the G5 there has been alot of design work, manpower, time, etc. in designing the unit to keep cool. The chassis is absolutely optimized to maximize airflow. The heat sinks are over-sized. The fan system is an extra system that needs to be designed and controlled. All of this had to be designed and was done not arbitrarily, but for a reason. If quietness was the SOLE reason, then there are other solution to that - the Cube was quiet and so is the iMac; however, I say that one of the main solutions was heat. In any project there are limited resources and cost constraints, therefore money, time, and manpower spent on this solution was money, time, and manpower taken from elsewhere. Even if the engineers had nothing else to do, the cost incurred ( even from the materials - those heat sinks are more costly than smaller ones ) impacts the return on the project. There was a conscious decision to deal with a high source of heat in the chassis.

There's the cogent response... but the childish ridicule is so much more fun! I DO think there were cogent points in the childish ridicule...


post #288 of 874
Quote:
Originally posted by chazmox
Ok! Ok! You got me! I'll admit I am wrong!

Thank you, now will you go to all the other websites that have used your graph and make all necessary corrections.
just waiting to be included in one of Apple's target markets.
Don't get me wrong, I like the flat panel iMac, actually own an iMac, and I like the Mac mini, but...........
just waiting to be included in one of Apple's target markets.
Don't get me wrong, I like the flat panel iMac, actually own an iMac, and I like the Mac mini, but...........
post #289 of 874
Quote:
Originally posted by soulcrusher
I am almost certain.

what kind of deal is it?
" I will not commit anything to memory that I can get from another source . . . "
ALBERT EINSTEIN
" I will not commit anything to memory that I can get from another source . . . "
ALBERT EINSTEIN
post #290 of 874
The idea that IBM's estimate would be off by roughly a factor of two doesn't make sense.

The idea that the 970 would consume nearly as much power as the MUCH more complicated POWER 4 doesn't make sense.

Conclusion: the eeTimes writer mistakenly put down the power consumption for both processors as the power consumption of one processor.

I don't know how much more simply I can put it.

--

Regarding the fans: The Cube's cooling system is irrelevant. Just assume for a moment that the 97 watt figure for both processors is correct. The processor in the Cube uses quite a bit less power than that... I don't know the figures for certain, but I'd be surprised if they were more than about 18-20 watts, probably closer to 15. Either way, the G5's use five or six times as much power as the Cube. There's no way Apple would consider using the same cooling method in the G5 as they used in the Cube. Besides, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for a machine that was cooled like the Cube. Frying the processor because you stacked a book on top of the machine doesn't really sound like good industrial design, to me.

As far as the iMac goes, why is it quieter than other computers? Perhaps because it uses a fan running at a lower speed? Sound familiar?

The G5's design addresses some of the shortcomings the El Cap case had. The first iteration of the MDD case, especially, had problems with PCI cards overheating, and the name "windtunnel" came from more than the fact that it has a huge fan, but because it is LOUD. It's rather obvious that the G5's design addresses these problems, and is not just to deal with a single source of heat within the chasis.

On topic: I'd imagine it's possible for Apple to shoe-horn a G5 into a Powerbook case, but I suspect they'll go with the 7457 instead. I'd imagine that the G5 along with a new system controller would draw enough power that Apple's claims of long battery life would go out the window (like from 5 hours down to 3 or 2 1/2, which means 1 1/2 to 2 1/2 realistically). I think Apple realizes that people value battery life above performance in a laptop, and will go with Moto for another iteration, at least.
post #291 of 874
I brought this up in the iMac thread, but this graph seems to be getting a lot of discussion here.



Can someone explain this graph to me so that it makes sense, or post a link to the original source document?

Why does the caption reading "97 Watts: Source: IBM 970 doc" have two arrows pointing at blue dots on the "Predicted" graph that are at about 20 and 42 watts? If the caption's not pointing out where the graph hits 97, what is it trying to point out?

Why are there two red lines for "Actual"? eeTimes data vs. IBM data? If so, which one is which? How did anyone come up with a curve for the top red line from only one data point on one end?

Is there any way to know if these figures had anything to do with a dual processor system rather than a single processor?
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
post #292 of 874
rickag... what corrections would you have me make??? Considering everything we are talking about here is an assumption... BTW, what other website has used this chart?

Geez, I'm down to explainning sarcasm!

Gamblor, you assume that the EETimes article was wrong and that the IBM marketing docs were correct. I assume otherwise. THAT is as simple as it gets.

Your fan explanation does not convince me.

Shetline, the 97 watts is from the EETimes article. The 42 watt/ 19 watt data points are from the three IBM marketing documents mentioned in other threads. Those points are mislabled with the "97 watts." As I said in the original post the graph is an extrapolation. It is based on the current number ( 97 watts ), the numbers from the IBM marketing doc, and SOI power consumption curves. It is a swag but so far we only have three numbers... wish there was more.
post #293 of 874
Quote:
Originally posted by chazmox
rickag... what corrections would you have me make???

You might remake your graph based on this IBM document released on 7/2/03.

IBM 970 @ 1.8GHz uses 47 watts.

Just need to add that I don't doubt your knowledge, but I tend to believe documents from IBM rather than second hand sources such as eetimes(to easy for reporters to misunderstand information they gather).

Oh, and as to other sites, I can't recall, could be Thinksecret or Spymac or MacNN, but your graph has definitely been used elsewhere. It is a very nice graph and very well thought out.

Promise this is the last edit. I forgot to mention that I stole this link from a post by ADDRAGYN at Arstechnica in the thread,"G3 and G4 Processors and news" in Machintosian Achaia Forum.
just waiting to be included in one of Apple's target markets.
Don't get me wrong, I like the flat panel iMac, actually own an iMac, and I like the Mac mini, but...........
just waiting to be included in one of Apple's target markets.
Don't get me wrong, I like the flat panel iMac, actually own an iMac, and I like the Mac mini, but...........
post #294 of 874
Quote:
Gamblor, you assume that the EETimes article was wrong and that the IBM marketing docs were correct. I assume otherwise. THAT is as simple as it gets.

Uh, no. I concluded that the eeTimes article was wrong, and provided the reasoning behind that conclusion. The fact that you rejected my reasoning does not make it an assumption.

Quote:
Your fan explanation does not convince me.

Ya know, Chazwazzer, I'm begining to suspect that you've been a manager for too long. You seem to rely on "proof via decree" quite a bit...

...None of which really matters, though, since rickag provided a link to current numbers from IBM. Thanks Rick!

I wonder how the eeTimes arrived at 97 watts? It's too high for a single processor, and I doubt the 2GHz 970 only consumes 1.5 watts more than the 1.8GHz...
post #295 of 874
PowerPage is on board with the world's most lukewarm rumor confirmation ever:

"A PowerPage source has indicated that the feature presentation by Greg 'Joz' Joswiak, Vice President of Hardware Product Marketing at Apple, may include a surprise announcement of the new Aluminum PowerBook 15-inch. It is unconfirmed and frankly, a long shot, but stranger things have happened. Joz is actively involved in PowerBooks and has given most of the quotes about the new 'Books to the media, so it seems plausible."
Attention Internet Users!

"it's" contraction of "it is"
"its" possessive form of the pronoun "it".

It's shameful how grammar on the Internet is losing its accuracy.
Attention Internet Users!

"it's" contraction of "it is"
"its" possessive form of the pronoun "it".

It's shameful how grammar on the Internet is losing its accuracy.
post #296 of 874
Rickag! Thanks for the new data point!!! Now that this is more recent, I believe this over the EE Times number.

I have a email in to the writer of the EE Times article on how he got the number.

I DO NOT see a power consumption rise of 50 watts from 1.8 GHz to 2 GHz. Could at most see a 10 watt rise and, yes, 1.5 watts seems a little low, but it is more in the ballpark than 50.

Gamblor, it's not that I believed the EETimes number; however, since it was the only number around it was the only data point I had. I've seen too many times where pre-production numbers turn out wrong. With the Power 4 numbers where they are it would seem unlikely and I agree that the reporter could have gotten it wrong; however, I don't KNOW that... so with only one post-production data point to go with...
post #297 of 874
Quote:
Originally posted by jante99
Here is what I say about this thread:
DIE! DIE! DIE!


I think this thread has been neutered, so the proper German definite article would be:

Das! Das! Das!
Die Grüne Hölle - Gute Fahrt
Die Grüne Hölle - Gute Fahrt
post #298 of 874
Quote:
Originally posted by Ensign Pulver
PowerPage is on board with the world's most lukewarm rumor confirmation ever:

"A PowerPage source has indicated that the feature presentation by Greg 'Joz' Joswiak, Vice President of Hardware Product Marketing at Apple, may include a surprise announcement of the new Aluminum PowerBook 15-inch. It is unconfirmed and frankly, a long shot, but stranger things have happened. Joz is actively involved in PowerBooks and has given most of the quotes about the new 'Books to the media, so it seems plausible."



That's about as much of a "kinda, maybe, sorta, not sure, could be, hmmm..." "rumor" as I've ever heard. They're trying to cover their backside, just in case it doesn't come to be.

They are, apparently, trying to be the salt to Macwhisper.com's pepper. The peanut butter to their jelly. The lemon to their lime, as it were.



Where macwhispers.com pretty much goes "yeah, 970 PowerBooks are DEFINITE at WWDC...we've seen the production numbers!!!" (and then gets all offended and pouty when people called him on his crap), powerpage.org seems to be going out of their way to make sure that, come next week if things don't pan out, they can always say "well, we SAID it was a longshot...".

post #299 of 874
Exactly, and Jack Campbell wonders why so many people get so pissed off! I mean he really says things like "two shifts have been working on the new 15 PB and Apple is stocking them in their warehouse." And then it doesn't happen and he's like "uhhh, I wasn't lying... they'll be out next week.."

Sorry to basically repeat your post, but the guy just drives me nuts!

It's like the Liar guy and Emily Lattela from SNL had a kid...

"Oh.... never mind.... that's the ticket!"
post #300 of 874
i miss the days of beige
post #301 of 874
Quote:
Originally posted by Ensign Pulver
PowerPage is on board with the world's most lukewarm rumor confirmation ever

It sounds like they are trying to have their cake and eat it too; if it's right they take credit, if it's wrong, "it's not like we didn't warn you"-type of thing. Lame ass.
You think Im an arrogant [expletive] who thinks hes above the law, and I think youre a slime bucket who gets most of his facts wrong. Steve Jobs
You think Im an arrogant [expletive] who thinks hes above the law, and I think youre a slime bucket who gets most of his facts wrong. Steve Jobs
post #302 of 874
Maybe we should change the title of this thread to "No New Powerbooks Tomorrow".
Unofficial AppleScript Studio Lobbyist
Unofficial AppleScript Studio Lobbyist
post #303 of 874
Quote:
Originally posted by chazmox
Rickag! Thanks for the new data point!!! Now that this is more recent, I believe this over the EE Times number.

the EEtimes document had another error in the same sentence:
"... Apple had to design a new enclosure with four independently controlled thermal zones, each with its own fan. "
http://www.eetimes.com/story/OEG20030623S0092

there are nine fans not four.

the eetimes has been a good article. kept us amused for a few days while waiting for a powerbook product release.
i particularly liked the chazmox excel 2-curve graph extrapolated from a single data point.

interesting thing about the ibm document from february:
www-3.ibm.com/chips/techlib/techlib.nsf/techdocs/7874C7DA8607C0B287256BF3006FBE54/$file/PowerPC_QRG_spreads_7-2-03.pdf
it only mentions a 1.3V 970. the earlier reference to a 1.1V version which might be suitable for a laptop is not there. hmmn... \
post #304 of 874
Strange: The PowerBook 15-inch has gone down to available 1-3 days from 7-10 days. Maybe it won't be updated. If it doesn't get updated next week and the 12- and 17-inch PB get revs, the handwriting is on the wall for the Ti.
You think Im an arrogant [expletive] who thinks hes above the law, and I think youre a slime bucket who gets most of his facts wrong. Steve Jobs
You think Im an arrogant [expletive] who thinks hes above the law, and I think youre a slime bucket who gets most of his facts wrong. Steve Jobs
post #305 of 874
Quote:
Originally posted by G5power
the EEtimes document had another error in the same sentence:
"... Apple had to design a new enclosure with four independently controlled thermal zones, each with its own fan. "
there are nine fans not four.

There are four thermal zones. Did you watch the video?
All these worlds are belong to us, except Europa. Take off no zigs there.
All these worlds are belong to us, except Europa. Take off no zigs there.
post #306 of 874
Quote:
Originally posted by Anonymous Karma
There are four thermal zones. Did you watch the video?

I assume the error he is referring to is the intimation in the article that each thermal zone has its own fan, implying 4 fans in total, which is obviously incorrect.
post #307 of 874
G5 Power... the curves were extrapolated from THREE data points and from typical SOI power consumption curves... and they were the only data points that anyone had at the time... until Rickag found the other IBM document.

post #308 of 874
Correct me if I'm wrong, but with only three points, one cannot plot a curve, but one can plot a plane. And by looking at the three points chosen, it looks askew...

73% of all statistics are fabricated.

There are three types of lies. Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics.

Jaedreth
___________

Life is too short to live in sanity.
___________

Life is too short to live in sanity.
post #309 of 874
Quote:
Originally posted by jaedreth
Correct me if I'm wrong, but with only three points, one cannot plot a curve, but one can plot a plane. And by looking at the three points chosen, it looks askew...

73% of all statistics are fabricated.

There are three types of lies. Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics.

Jaedreth

Right and wrong, mostly wrong. Yes, planes are uniquely determined by three points but that really has nothing to with this discussion. You can not plot a curve by knowing three points. You can interpolate or extrapolate a curve by using any number of points, using La'Grange polynomials, which means that you estimate the curve by finding the polynomial of degree n (where n is the number of points you know) which passes through those points. There are other methods of interpolation or extrapolation you can use depending on exactly what you know about the data you are trying to analyze. In this case we know the data being analyzed probably has a similar curve shape to the same data for other processors, so that could be used.. yaddy yaddy yadda...
Everybody wants prosthetic foreheads on their real heads.
Everybody wants prosthetic foreheads on their real heads.
post #310 of 874
As for the fans issue, there are 9 fans, there are 4 thermal zones. Some of those fans are attached to specific devices.

If you're looking at the side view on apple.com/powermac/design.html, the bottom thermal zone is for the power supply. That's one fan.

The next thermal zone is where the processors are. There are two fans prominant almost half way between the front of the case and where the processors reside, sitting next to the ram slots on the side laid logic board. There are two more fans at the back of the case where the two fan grills are, so this thermal zone has 4 fans. Each of those fans are wide.

The next thermal zone is for the PCI cards. Because this is a side view, you cannot see depth or dimension. The fans are only at the front, but there are two there, each taking up half the width of the computer.

Then with the top thermal zone we have the same scenario for the drives. Two fans, but you can only see one because it is a side view.

So unless you know what to look for, you can't see a fan for the power supply thermal zone, you only see two fans for the processor thermal zone, only one fan for the pci thermal zone, and only one for the drive thermal zone.

But there are 9 fans, and 7 of them are computer controlled speed dependent upon tempurature.

Which two are not? The two for the back grill. They would probably run at a constant slow speed for minimal noise output. These two fans will keep the airflow of the entire computer moving, wether fast or slow, in the off case another fan fails.

I hope this illuminates this topic, as I've seen a lot of arguement on this.

Jaedreth
___________

Life is too short to live in sanity.
___________

Life is too short to live in sanity.
post #311 of 874
Quote:
Originally posted by Delphiki
There are other methods of interpolation or extrapolation you can use depending on exactly what you know about the data you are trying to analyze. In this case we know the data being analyzed probably has a similar curve shape to the same data for other processors, so that could be used...

This is what was done... you can base extrapolations on three points if you have other data on similar processes. Physics doesn't radically change for these types of devices.

Would like to have had more data points but three was all we had!
post #312 of 874
I'm surprised no one mentioned Jack's latest yet so here's the link: OEM Pipleline Report

I hope he's completely wrong about the TiBook because I'd be bitterly disappointed if there was no aluminum version. The only reason why I didn't get a Ti before now is because I didn't want all the problems associated with it like poor AirPort performance, flakey display hinge and flaking paint. Would anyone buy a revised Ti? Would you buy it just because they slapped a bit faster processor into it? Would you like it if they kept the same display?

Let's just hope that Jack's July 4th fall did more than injure his collar bone.
post #313 of 874
...
post #314 of 874
OMG!

Geez, Jack is all over the map!!!! I find this rumor with Apple staying with the Ti hard to believe... actually everything that is on MacWhispers is hard to believe... one bad prediction gets morphed into another one and so on...

Funny Jack has been reporting that Aluminum versions of the 15 inch were on the shelf in Feb. Wonder what happenned to those???
post #315 of 874
Quoted from Macwhispers:

It appears that the entire Powerbook lineup is aimed toward a January 2004 refresh, with all three models (and, perhaps a fourth model) moving to the G5 simultaneously, at that time. We are attempting to second source this report. But, it is at least a solid possibility that not only is no G5 mid-size Powerbook knocking at the door, but that the new model will not even pick up the anodized aluminum styling of its smaller and larger siblings.

I don't doubt a lineup refresh in January 2004, but the fact that the TiBook won't go AL but still be updated seems quite farfetched!

Jack was silly enough on July 4th to think his flabby 45-year old body could keep up with a back yard full of rowdy teenagers, and the result was a severe fall and a broken collar bone... and as much as a month of painful, very slow, one-handed typing.

Get ViaVoice, Jack.
...we have assumed control
...we have assumed control
post #316 of 874
Well, if Jack can only type one handed then I guess for the length of his recovery, MacWhisper will only be wrong half as much!
post #317 of 874
Scrolling back a bit... is there some natural connection between the release of new hardware and oral auto-eroticism, or is this just a strange custom some of you folks have? Either way, I admire your flexibility. I could manage no such feat upon purchasing my AlBook.

post #318 of 874
Two things:

1. This guy is Ryan Meaders father

2. Something funny...I read a post here yesterday by someone saying that they werent interested in getting a new PowerBook that wasnt based on the newer, cooler G4 (is it the 7457? I cant remember). And I got to thinking yeah, me too.....

If Im going to drop such money, I too want something that I feel is the latest and greatest, as far as inside tech/guts go. Im not interested in only getting a 100MHz bump and/or aluminum body. That Motorola chip doesnt seem ready yet (lower power, bettery battery life), so I dont know if I want to drop $2600 or so on the current stuff).

This weird part of me actually wouldnt mind if that goons latest story is true because it makes my life and decision making MUCH easier: If a 15 PowerBook update is released, say next week or within a month, and its STILL Titanium (with all the problems/quirks that entails), then I simply pay a spiffy 12 Combo Drive iBook for the time being. I can do that from savings alone by week after next (with money left over), sell my iMac at my llesires and take the money from it, five months of saving (August-December) and get whatever PowerBook finds its way to us in the first quarter or so of 2004.

Its just funny that I went to bed last night re-thinking this all and then to hear this today.

post #319 of 874
Quote:
Originally posted by chazmox
OMG!

Funny Jack has been reporting that Aluminum versions of the 15 inch were on the shelf in Feb. Wonder what happenned to those???

Don't you know that Apple scrapped the entire production run of boxed and ready to go 15" PowerBook G5s back in February so that they could release updated Ti PowerBook G4s in July instead? It's perfectly logical you know...
post #320 of 874
You get a prize for writing Jack's next MacWhisper's article!!!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
This thread is locked  
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › New PowerBooks tomorrow.