If a 100 MB boost to an outdated CPU is all they can muster, then my request to Apple is "Please don't bother!" That would just be an excuse to maintain, or worse yet, raise the price for no good reason. Just keep the lineup as is and lower the prices until a real upgrade is ready for market.
G4s don't really matter that much for general use? That doesn't sound like very good add copy for Apple's product lines. The performance of which are based almost 100% on Altivec. Without Altivec (G4), the PowerMac and the PowerBook are powerless.
It's just specific applications that benefit from it? Do you mean applications like OS X, iToons, and iMovie?
A G3 is still a decent processor, especially for a laptop? Apple does not think it is a decent processor for the consumer desktop, nor K-12 students. No good for businesses either. Why do you think these same people need less of a system when working from their couch or the breakfast table?
Apple is in the position of saying on the one hand that the G4 is important for everyone when it comes to good performance on the Mac. And on the other hand saying that it is not all that important. The same is true with QE. It will greately speed up the GUI. On the other hand, mobile consumers don't need or want a snappy GUI. It won't make that much difference anyway. Which is it, Apple.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think there is a pretty high possibility that the iBook will go G4 pretty soon, though you would think they would want to do it at MWNY or MWSF just to make a bigger splash. On the other hand, they might not want to draw too much attention away from the TiBook.
Now that the iBook is the only product in Apple's lineup (G3 iMac doesn't count) I don't think there is any reason at all that they should not put a G4 in there. After all, the iBook is due for a major overhaul much like the TiBook just got right about now. Seems like an as good of time as any...
I hope to be surprised on Monday/Tuesday. I may opt to get one of these machines over the iMac G4.
<strong>One issue about the iBook going to G4 that hasn't been touched upon is the pricing.
Generally you pay a premium for the portability that a laptop affords you.
A 800mhz Powerbook costs $3200 while the 933mhz desktop is a mere $2400.
So if the iBook goes G4, should it not cost more than a G4 iMac?
The current 700 combo iMac is $1600. Does that mean a new 700 G4 iBook will go for around $2000-$2200?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm guessing that it wont be much of an issue. It may cost $100 more but it will be minimal. I'm pretty sure that G4's aren't one of the bigger cost issues driving the price of the iMac up. If the iBook goes G4, with all the procs Apple will be buying from Moto, they will probably cut them a pretty good deal.
Unfortunately once it goes G4, I fear an unwelcome hefty price hike.
Apple will justify it by saying it's now G4, and not simply a speed bump.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You're right it isn't.
But look at the difference between the eMac and the iMac, at the different prices. The eMac has a much larger display, better graphics, and a lot of other things. Plus you must factor in that they must be making up for the R&D. Whenever Apple has introduced a new, low-end product the price has gone down after a while. The iMac's price went down long ago, the eMac's is just starting out. Pretty soon, it too will drop, as with the iMac G4.
If Apple is going to give us an overhauled iBook, you bet it is going to cost a little bit more. Will it be worth it? Hell yes! The current iBook sucks for many things and the G4 is the kind of boost it needs, otherwise it will get to be more and more of a joke.
Add in a GeForce2 Go 200, and you have a pretty potent entry level computer.
Who knows, the current iBook may morph into what the iMac G4 is now, a sort of prosumer laptop, while the iBook G3 stays there as a low cost option
Either way, it has to go G4 sometime. The bandwagon is waiting.
I don't see how you think a G4 in a laptop results in more expensive pricing than going g3 to g4 in a desktop.
makes no sense.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Sure it does. You need more extravagant cooling options when working with laptops. Look at the heatpipes and the heatpad, and the two fans in the new PowerBooks...little things, but the components add up.
Sure it does. You need more extravagant cooling options when working with laptops. Look at the heatpipes and the heatpad, and the two fans in the new PowerBooks...little things, but the components add up.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Look at the minimal cooling in the iMac...if the iBook uses the low power version of the 7451 or 7455 then it will not need all the cooling that the PowerBook does (it doesn't use the low power version, those don't support L3.)
Sure it does. You need more extravagant cooling options when working with laptops. Look at the heatpipes and the heatpad, and the two fans in the new PowerBooks...little things, but the components add up.</strong><hr></blockquote>
yes, but assuming that a redsign would be neccessary with the next significant rev anyways the cost difference is not much.
of course if apple just wants a speedbump update then a G4 is not going to happen and I have said that in the past. but if Apple is doing a major motherboard change there is little reason not to go with a G4. and based on the eMac I would make the conclusion that Apple WANTS there products to be all G4 SOON.
yes, but assuming that a redsign would be neccessary with the next significant rev anyways the cost difference is not much.
of course if apple just wants a speedbump update then a G4 is not going to happen and I have said that in the past. but if Apple is doing a major motherboard change there is little reason not to go with a G4. and based on the eMac I would make the conclusion that Apple WANTS there products to be all G4 SOON.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes, probably to pave way for the 8500/7500/Insertprocessorofyourchoicebutnotsaharahere.
Plus, the iBook hasn't seen a major revision in a year and a half (the 14" doesn't count, they probably put that together in a week.)
Yeah, its not the world most exciting upgrade ever.... I actually got excited for a sec when I mis-read the new ibook page and thought it said 13" (display) but it turned out to be 1.3" (thickness) sigh...... <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" /> I know they cant make it faster/phatter/phunkier etc than the TiBook but still.... <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" /> 6.5/10 with an extra point for at least getting it out in time for education sales...
Further to above post I think Apple want to sit on this design/spec now and then Bring in an "All-new" G4 iBook2 with DDR/13.3" higher res. display, etc later this year in time for holiday sales and keep this current one on as the "eBook" (edu-only)
Apple says OS X 10.2 should be run with at least 32 Meg of video ram and then a few weeks later when they update the iBook, it doesn't even come with enough video ram for 10.2. You'd think after releasing the video ram requirements for 10.2, all new hardware released after saying 10.2 is best run with 32 Meg minimum would be upgraded with these requirements.
Why would I or anybody for that matter, want one of these new iBook's when we know QE is not going to run as well on it as compared to an iBook with 32 Meg of video ram?
Apple says OS X 10.2 should be run with at least 32 Meg of video ram and then a few weeks later when they update the iBook, it doesn't even come with enough video ram for 10.2. </strong><hr></blockquote>
They never said 10.2 needs 32meg vram to run, or that QE needs 32meg vram to speed things up.
10.2 will run on any X capable Mac. QE needs a minimum Radeon class or minimum Geforce2 class video card and optimum performance needs 32meg VRAM. <a href="http://www.apple.com/macosx/newversion/"; target="_blank">Look!</a>. The 32meg thing is for high speed on 23" cinema displays or Powerbook G4-800s.
They never said 10.2 needs 32meg vram to run, or that QE needs 32meg vram to speed things up.
10.2 will run on any X capable Mac. QE needs a minimum Radeon class or minimum Geforce2 class video card and optimum performance needs 32meg VRAM. <a href="http://www.apple.com/macosx/newversion/"; target="_blank">Look!</a>. The 32meg thing is for high speed on 23" cinema displays or Powerbook G4-800s.
I know OS X 10.2 will run on any X capable mac. But when Apple says "32MB VRAM recommended for optimum performance," I would expect any new hardware from Apple to be sold so as such so that 10.2 runs as good as possible.
[quote]Blackcat,I know OS X 10.2 will run on any X capable mac. But when Apple says "32MB VRAM recommended for optimum performance," I would expect any new hardware from Apple to be sold so as such so that 10.2 runs as good as possible. <hr></blockquote>
This is not a reference to optimum 10.2 performance, but rather to Quartz Extreme, which is an option on 10.2. It is a given that even without QE, the system will be faster, more stable and more responsive that 10.1!
Comments
<strong>
If a 100 MB boost to an outdated CPU is all they can muster, then my request to Apple is "Please don't bother!" That would just be an excuse to maintain, or worse yet, raise the price for no good reason. Just keep the lineup as is and lower the prices until a real upgrade is ready for market.
G4s don't really matter that much for general use? That doesn't sound like very good add copy for Apple's product lines. The performance of which are based almost 100% on Altivec. Without Altivec (G4), the PowerMac and the PowerBook are powerless.
It's just specific applications that benefit from it? Do you mean applications like OS X, iToons, and iMovie?
A G3 is still a decent processor, especially for a laptop? Apple does not think it is a decent processor for the consumer desktop, nor K-12 students. No good for businesses either. Why do you think these same people need less of a system when working from their couch or the breakfast table?
Apple is in the position of saying on the one hand that the G4 is important for everyone when it comes to good performance on the Mac. And on the other hand saying that it is not all that important. The same is true with QE. It will greately speed up the GUI. On the other hand, mobile consumers don't need or want a snappy GUI. It won't make that much difference anyway. Which is it, Apple.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think there is a pretty high possibility that the iBook will go G4 pretty soon, though you would think they would want to do it at MWNY or MWSF just to make a bigger splash. On the other hand, they might not want to draw too much attention away from the TiBook.
Now that the iBook is the only product in Apple's lineup (G3 iMac doesn't count) I don't think there is any reason at all that they should not put a G4 in there. After all, the iBook is due for a major overhaul much like the TiBook just got right about now. Seems like an as good of time as any...
I hope to be surprised on Monday/Tuesday. I may opt to get one of these machines over the iMac G4.
Generally you pay a premium for the portability that a laptop affords you.
A 800mhz Powerbook costs $3200 while the 933mhz desktop is a mere $2400.
So if the iBook goes G4, should it not cost more than a G4 iMac?
The current 700 combo iMac is $1600. Does that mean a new 700 G4 iBook will go for around $2000-$2200?
<strong>One issue about the iBook going to G4 that hasn't been touched upon is the pricing.
Generally you pay a premium for the portability that a laptop affords you.
A 800mhz Powerbook costs $3200 while the 933mhz desktop is a mere $2400.
So if the iBook goes G4, should it not cost more than a G4 iMac?
The current 700 combo iMac is $1600. Does that mean a new 700 G4 iBook will go for around $2000-$2200?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm guessing that it wont be much of an issue. It may cost $100 more but it will be minimal. I'm pretty sure that G4's aren't one of the bigger cost issues driving the price of the iMac up. If the iBook goes G4, with all the procs Apple will be buying from Moto, they will probably cut them a pretty good deal.
Just my 2¢.
<img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" />
<strong>One issue about the iBook going to G4 that hasn't been touched upon is the pricing.
Generally you pay a premium for the portability that a laptop affords you.
A 800mhz Powerbook costs $3200 while the 933mhz desktop is a mere $2400.
So if the iBook goes G4, should it not cost more than a G4 iMac?
The current 700 combo iMac is $1600. Does that mean a new 700 G4 iBook will go for around $2000-$2200?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Apple sells a eMac with 700Mhz G4 for 999 for a profit.
the G4 is not much more expensive than a similarly clocked G3. the margin is likely smaller than 40 bucks.
<strong>
Apple sells a eMac with 700Mhz G4 for 999 for a profit.
the G4 is not much more expensive than a similarly clocked G3. the margin is likely smaller than 40 bucks.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Exactly. It also has a 17 inch display and some nice asthetical features. It's no beige-design-concept-conceived-in-ten-minutes computer.
And since Apple will probably be pushing a million iBooks or so a year, Moto might be willing to make up the margin in order to sell the extra procs.
<strong>
Apple sells a eMac with 700Mhz G4 for 999 for a profit.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
The eMac is also not a laptop.
Unfortunately once it goes G4, I fear an unwelcome hefty price hike.
Apple will justify it by saying it's now G4, and not simply a speed bump.
<strong>
The eMac is also not a laptop.
Unfortunately once it goes G4, I fear an unwelcome hefty price hike.
Apple will justify it by saying it's now G4, and not simply a speed bump.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't see how you think a G4 in a laptop results in more expensive pricing than going g3 to g4 in a desktop.
makes no sense.
<strong>
The eMac is also not a laptop.
Unfortunately once it goes G4, I fear an unwelcome hefty price hike.
Apple will justify it by saying it's now G4, and not simply a speed bump.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You're right it isn't.
But look at the difference between the eMac and the iMac, at the different prices. The eMac has a much larger display, better graphics, and a lot of other things. Plus you must factor in that they must be making up for the R&D. Whenever Apple has introduced a new, low-end product the price has gone down after a while. The iMac's price went down long ago, the eMac's is just starting out. Pretty soon, it too will drop, as with the iMac G4.
If Apple is going to give us an overhauled iBook, you bet it is going to cost a little bit more. Will it be worth it? Hell yes! The current iBook sucks for many things and the G4 is the kind of boost it needs, otherwise it will get to be more and more of a joke.
Add in a GeForce2 Go 200, and you have a pretty potent entry level computer.
Who knows, the current iBook may morph into what the iMac G4 is now, a sort of prosumer laptop, while the iBook G3 stays there as a low cost option
Either way, it has to go G4 sometime. The bandwagon is waiting.
<strong>
I don't see how you think a G4 in a laptop results in more expensive pricing than going g3 to g4 in a desktop.
makes no sense.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Sure it does. You need more extravagant cooling options when working with laptops. Look at the heatpipes and the heatpad, and the two fans in the new PowerBooks...little things, but the components add up.
<strong>
Sure it does. You need more extravagant cooling options when working with laptops. Look at the heatpipes and the heatpad, and the two fans in the new PowerBooks...little things, but the components add up.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Look at the minimal cooling in the iMac...if the iBook uses the low power version of the 7451 or 7455 then it will not need all the cooling that the PowerBook does (it doesn't use the low power version, those don't support L3.)
<strong>
Sure it does. You need more extravagant cooling options when working with laptops. Look at the heatpipes and the heatpad, and the two fans in the new PowerBooks...little things, but the components add up.</strong><hr></blockquote>
yes, but assuming that a redsign would be neccessary with the next significant rev anyways the cost difference is not much.
of course if apple just wants a speedbump update then a G4 is not going to happen and I have said that in the past. but if Apple is doing a major motherboard change there is little reason not to go with a G4. and based on the eMac I would make the conclusion that Apple WANTS there products to be all G4 SOON.
<strong>
yes, but assuming that a redsign would be neccessary with the next significant rev anyways the cost difference is not much.
of course if apple just wants a speedbump update then a G4 is not going to happen and I have said that in the past. but if Apple is doing a major motherboard change there is little reason not to go with a G4. and based on the eMac I would make the conclusion that Apple WANTS there products to be all G4 SOON.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes, probably to pave way for the 8500/7500/Insertprocessorofyourchoicebutnotsaharahere.
Plus, the iBook hasn't seen a major revision in a year and a half (the 14" doesn't count, they probably put that together in a week.)
Bring on the G4's!
All specs as previously shown
Just my 2 cents...
Apple says OS X 10.2 should be run with at least 32 Meg of video ram and then a few weeks later when they update the iBook, it doesn't even come with enough video ram for 10.2. You'd think after releasing the video ram requirements for 10.2, all new hardware released after saying 10.2 is best run with 32 Meg minimum would be upgraded with these requirements.
Why would I or anybody for that matter, want one of these new iBook's when we know QE is not going to run as well on it as compared to an iBook with 32 Meg of video ram?
<strong>16 Meg video ram: What a disappointment!
Apple says OS X 10.2 should be run with at least 32 Meg of video ram and then a few weeks later when they update the iBook, it doesn't even come with enough video ram for 10.2. </strong><hr></blockquote>
<img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
They never said 10.2 needs 32meg vram to run, or that QE needs 32meg vram to speed things up.
10.2 will run on any X capable Mac. QE needs a minimum Radeon class or minimum Geforce2 class video card and optimum performance needs 32meg VRAM. <a href="http://www.apple.com/macosx/newversion/"; target="_blank">Look!</a>. The 32meg thing is for high speed on 23" cinema displays or Powerbook G4-800s.
The sky is not falling.
[ 05-20-2002: Message edited by: Blackcat ]</p>
<strong>
They never said 10.2 needs 32meg vram to run, or that QE needs 32meg vram to speed things up.
10.2 will run on any X capable Mac. QE needs a minimum Radeon class or minimum Geforce2 class video card and optimum performance needs 32meg VRAM. <a href="http://www.apple.com/macosx/newversion/"; target="_blank">Look!</a>. The 32meg thing is for high speed on 23" cinema displays or Powerbook G4-800s.
The sky is not falling.
[ 05-20-2002: Message edited by: Blackcat ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Blackcat,
I know OS X 10.2 will run on any X capable mac. But when Apple says "32MB VRAM recommended for optimum performance," I would expect any new hardware from Apple to be sold so as such so that 10.2 runs as good as possible.
[ 05-20-2002: Message edited by: CaseCom ]</p>
This is not a reference to optimum 10.2 performance, but rather to Quartz Extreme, which is an option on 10.2. It is a given that even without QE, the system will be faster, more stable and more responsive that 10.1!