That would be a TOTAL sweet PowerBook: 1.2GHz (more or less...okay, more!) and 2MB L3 cache. Be cool if they got the bus up a bit too, just to humor us.
Have that on the speed/power end. Then have FireWire 800, Bluetooth, AirPort Extreme, Gigabit Ethernet, USB (think it'll be 2.0?), modem, DVI, etc. on the I/O
1GB RAM, 60-80GBs and 2x SuperDrive on the memory/storage/optical front.
16:10 15.4 display with same vertical resolution as before (854 pixels) and 64MB graphics) on the display.
All in a sexy aluminum bod with - maybe - backlit keys?
Oooooooooooooooooooooooo!
And for $799!
Yep, that's what I want, all right. I'm willing to pay a few dollars more, though. Yeah, 2x DVD-R would be excellent!
Speaking of 'Books, I enjoyed seeing all the Geek Cruise folks with their 'Books on CBS Sunday Morning! There were clamshell and chicklet iBooks, TiBooks and AlBooks. Nuthin' like having your nose buried in your 'Book while cruising the Pacific Islands.
Okay, I shot a bit low...I'd gladly pay the current $2599 for a model spec-ed like the one I described in my last post. NO problem with that at all.
BTW, MOSR (not that I'm putting too much stock in anything they say) mention the new 15.4" screen at "1280x854..." (or slightly more, depending).
That means - if MOSR is anywhere near clued-in...and that's a HUGE "if" - the screen only got .2" larger and kept the same, current 16:11 ratio?
As I talked about in a thread weeks ago, I'm REALLY hoping this 15.4" represents a new widescreen 16:10 ratio. If so, then the vertical resolution - assuming it stays put from the TiBook - would be 854 and the horizontal is something like 1366, give or take. Nice and wide, with room for much palletes and iChat and collapsed iTunes.
Here is an example of how a 16:10 screen with the vertical resolution of 854 would be.
Considering the cooling on a G5. I still don't see it.
The 970 documents show the 1.8GHz model using 42 watts (1.3V), and the 1.2GHz using 19 watts (1.1V). My understanding of the current processors in the PowerBook is 16-22 watts. Why do you feel heat would be such an issue with the 1.2GHz 970?
We only have the barest pieces of the puzzle to figure out whether Apple could put a G5 in a PB. The public information is pretty sparse.
The oft cited value of about 19W at 1.2GHz for the G5 may be true but it doesn't speak to the power management capabilities. Perhaps the G5 always runs at that level while the G4 can throttle down to something much less when it is idling. How about the power requirements of the rest of the system when the bus is running much faster? The devil is in the details like this.
Something like this must be going on. The battery in a Ti PB has a capacity of about 45 Watt-hours or so. At a draw of 19W you'd get a little over two hours use. Considering the LCD, HD and other chips also use power then you'd have to figure considerably less than two hours battery time with a 20W processor. Since a new battery can power the Ti Book for over four hours the G4 must have a mode that uses considerably less than 20W and so the G5 won't go into a PB till it has the same behavior.
We only have the barest pieces of the puzzle to figure out whether Apple could put a G5 in a PB. The public information is pretty sparse.
The oft cited value of about 19W at 1.2GHz for the G5 may be true but it doesn't speak to the power management capabilities. Perhaps the G5 always runs at that level while the G4 can throttle down to something much less when it is idling. How about the power requirements of the rest of the system when the bus is running much faster? The devil is in the details like this.
The 970 is also capable of throttling down. In fact, the top-end PowerMac actually runs both CPUs at 1.3GHz, and only gooses them up to 2GHz when the computation load requires it. This probably goes a long way to keeping the machine quiet under normal use.
Something like that would certainly be possible in a PowerBook: A 1.2GHz 970 that actually ran at 700MHz or so by default, and only ramped up to full speed if the load suddenly got heavy and it was plugged into a wall.
Note also the rumor that Apple is aggressively looking into fuel cell technology for batteries. There's no way that'll appear in the next revision, but it certainly demonstrates that they're looking for something better than the tech they have.
(snip)As I talked about in a thread weeks ago, I'm REALLY hoping this 15.4" represents a new widescreen 16:10 ratio. If so, then the vertical resolution - assuming it stays put from the TiBook - would be 854 and the horizontal is something like 1366, give or take. Nice and wide, with room for much palletes and iChat and collapsed iTunes.
Here is an example of how a 16:10 screen with the vertical resolution of 854 would be.
I could handle that!
Dell's 15.4" UltraSharp displays come in 3 resolutions: 1280 x 800 WXGA, 1680 x 1050 WSXGA+, and 1920 x 1200 WUXGA. The Ti is 1280 x 854. I hope we get get something easy on the eyes. What's up with the weird pixel ratio on the Dell?
Dell's 15.4" UltraSharp displays come in 3 resolutions: 1280 x 800 WXGA, 1680 x 1050 WSXGA+, and 1920 x 1200 WUXGA. The Ti is 1280 x 854. I hope we get get something easy on the eyes. What's up with the weird pixel ratio on the Dell?
Weird pixel ratio? They're all exactly 16:10.
I would positively kill for a 1920x1200. 1680x1050 would be quite nice too. Of course, Apple will use the 1280x800.
Hurry up with the "being able to scale the entire interface arbitrarily" thing, Apple. Then you can make us both happy, and have some of the sharpest displays in existence.
Yeah, just running the calculation, 1280x800 is indeed a 16:10 ratio, so I'd be totally thrilled with that. The vertical (800) is a tad lower res than the current TiBook, BUT the display itself is going to be a tad shorter in height, so it all probably works out just great.
800 sits nicely between 768 (what I'm currently used to) and the TiBook's 854, so I can dig that.
Of course, now I need to re-do my mockup screen to get a feel for what that's like (1280x800).
I would positively kill for a 1920x1200. 1680x1050 would be quite nice too. Of course, Apple will use the 1280x800.
Hurry up with the "being able to scale the entire interface arbitrarily" thing, Apple. Then you can make us both happy, and have some of the sharpest displays in existence.
Why in the world would ANYONE want those two higher resolutions on a 15" screen? Are you nuts?
It would be damn near impossible to see anything! 1280x800 is probably really good at 15.4" @ 16:10. I'll dig it to no end...
Why in the world would ANYONE want those two higher resolutions on a 15" screen? Are you nuts?
It would be damn near impossible to see anything! 1280x800 is probably really good at 15.4" @ 16:10. I'll dig it to no end...
Three words; enlarge your fonts. 1680x1050 sounds great to me. I have a hard time running GoLive on my TiBook (1280x854) with a page window, site window and palettes all open. A few more pixels in each direction would be a big help! (Please don't tell me to buy an external display. I work with the computer on my lap.)
My other point is this: if they aren't putting in a G5 in a powerbook and planning instead to introduce it in January, then how the heck are they going to fit an even hotter G4 in these laptops??? I mean realistically, I think that 1ghz, in my opinion, probably is the hottest they can get these things into a powerbook.
With the die-shrink the 7457 should run cooler than the 7455.
I was going to let this go since this has been debated elsewhere many times. However, I couldn't.
Lots of folks argue that with higher resolution displays they would have trouble seeing stuff. What can't they see? If the type is too small, enlarge it. It's true that some type, such as that in menus and dialog boxes can't be enlarged (yet) but I would argue that OS X system fonts are large enough that they could be easily read even if resolution were to reach, say, 140 pixels per inch. 140 ppi is approximately what the resolution would be if a 15.4 inch display was 1680x1050 pixels.
I've thought about buying a 17" Big Al PowerBook to gain some screen real estate but its screen is only 1440x900, only a slight advantage over the 1280x854 of the 15.2" TiBook I have now.
So as not to get too far off topic, I would really like to see a new 15.4" aluminum PowerBook with a higher resolution than the rumored 1280x800, and at the same time, a 17" model that's higher than the current 1440x900. Maybe I'm in the minority, but I really believe higher resolution displays would be much better than what Apple currently offers.
Lots of folks argue that with higher resolution displays they would have trouble seeing stuff. What can't they see? If the type is too small, enlarge it. It's true that some type, such as that in menus and dialog boxes can't be enlarged (yet) but I would argue that OS X system fonts are large enough that they could be easily read even if resolution were to reach, say, 140 pixels per inch. 140 ppi is approximately what the resolution would be if a 15.4 inch display was 1680x1050 pixels.
Yeah, try any palette on any pro app and see how useful your eye-straining resolutions are.
The 970 wont appear in the Pbook until the wattage comes down (ie, after a die shrink). People are throwing around wattage numbers for both the 7455 and 970 that are not correct.
Apple is once again (and hopefully for the last time) waiting for Moto to get in gear with the 7457. It is late, but if the Register is to be trusted (which, of course, it isn't) Moto have accelerated the schedule by a quarter. The 7457 should be great for the Powerbook, especially at 1.3GHz or so.
Regarding screen resolution, I think that Apple tries to maintain true WYSIWYG, so if you are typing a 10pt font, it really is 10pt on screen. The newer displays don't follow this, though. However, regarding pallet sizes, menu bars, etc, it seems that this is simple enough for Apple to fix via APIs. Rather than the size of such objects be specified in pixels (which change), it should be specified as a true size instead. That way, no matter the resolution, the size of the object remains the same correct size (in Apple's eyes). As resolution goes up, the objects will just look better, as more pixels are used to create them. I am sure some of the knowledgeable staff will correct me on this, but it seems like it should work.
The 970 wont appear in the Pbook until the wattage comes down (ie, after a die shrink). People are throwing around wattage numbers for both the 7455 and 970 that are not correct.
If you are talking about my wattage numbers, they were pulled directly off the spec sheets for the 7455 and 970. Why do you feel they were incorrect? Take a look at the 7455 spec sheet (you can find it at Motorola's website): running in full power mode, the processor uses 15-22 watts at 1GHz.
The 19 watts for the 1.2GHz 970 is shown as estimated typical wattage, as per the 970 documentation available on IBM's website. While higher than the 7455, 4 watts more for typical isn't that much higher.
The 970 documentation, however, didn't talk about any nap/doze/sleep modes, so I don't know if they are not available or merely not mentioned.
And take a look at the wattage of the oh-so-wonderful 7457: at 1.3GHz, it consumes 18.7-26.0 watts. Probably in nearly the same range as the 1.2GHz 970. Again, this is all from the spec sheets publicly available on Motorola's website.
This being the case, heat dissipation by the 970 should be very similar to that of the 7455/7457, as should battery life be (assuming the 970 has lower-power operational modes, as do the G4s).
What do you base you "wattage numbers are not correct" statement on?
While waiting for the 15" AlBook to ship, it's nice to see there'll be some mighty impressive PBs coming down the pike next year. Macbidouille.com has some believable info regarding that today, saying that the heat problem has been mostly solved but the real problem is the controller on the mobo. Things will be easier once it's onboard the CPU.
The way things look, let's say Apple announces a 15.4" AlBook with 1.2 GHz 7457, along with all the other Al goodies. If the pricing is decent, it'll be a fine PB that should see lots of buyers the rest of this year. Even though I know G5 and G6 PBs are coming next year, that wouldn't stop me from getting an Al now.
Let's say MWSF sees the introduction of the PB G5 at up to 1.4 GHz in January. I'll bet it'll be a bit warm and have marginal battery life, say 2 hrs. (4 within the RDF).
Macbidouille's informant went on to say that PB speeds wouldn't improve until the .09µ process is used. She also says that the G6 would debut at the EOL speed of the G5, about 2.5 to 2.8 GHz. Remember at WWDC Steve said they'd be at 3 GHz in a year? AFAIK, that means the G6 (980) will appear a year from now so maybe the G6 PB will be announced in July, 2004, at 2.8 GHz! Imagine! The speed of the PB could DOUBLE in 6 months!
So, I need a new PB now and I really want a 15" AlBook but I wonder how long I can hold out for a G6 PB.
One thing's for sure, Apple will have an excellent 2nd half of 2003 but it's looking like 2004 will be gangbusters!
Comments
Originally posted by pscates
That would be a TOTAL sweet PowerBook: 1.2GHz (more or less...okay, more!) and 2MB L3 cache. Be cool if they got the bus up a bit too, just to humor us.
Have that on the speed/power end. Then have FireWire 800, Bluetooth, AirPort Extreme, Gigabit Ethernet, USB (think it'll be 2.0?), modem, DVI, etc. on the I/O
1GB RAM, 60-80GBs and 2x SuperDrive on the memory/storage/optical front.
16:10 15.4 display with same vertical resolution as before (854 pixels) and 64MB graphics) on the display.
All in a sexy aluminum bod with - maybe - backlit keys?
Oooooooooooooooooooooooo!
And for $799!
Yep, that's what I want, all right.
Speaking of 'Books, I enjoyed seeing all the Geek Cruise folks with their 'Books on CBS Sunday Morning! There were clamshell and chicklet iBooks, TiBooks and AlBooks. Nuthin' like having your nose buried in your 'Book while cruising the Pacific Islands.
BTW, MOSR (not that I'm putting too much stock in anything they say) mention the new 15.4" screen at "1280x854..." (or slightly more, depending).
That means - if MOSR is anywhere near clued-in...and that's a HUGE "if" - the screen only got .2" larger and kept the same, current 16:11 ratio?
As I talked about in a thread weeks ago, I'm REALLY hoping this 15.4" represents a new widescreen 16:10 ratio. If so, then the vertical resolution - assuming it stays put from the TiBook - would be 854 and the horizontal is something like 1366, give or take. Nice and wide, with room for much palletes and iChat and collapsed iTunes.
Here is an example of how a 16:10 screen with the vertical resolution of 854 would be.
I could handle that!
Originally posted by Lemon Bon Bon
Considering the cooling on a G5. I still don't see it.
The 970 documents show the 1.8GHz model using 42 watts (1.3V), and the 1.2GHz using 19 watts (1.1V). My understanding of the current processors in the PowerBook is 16-22 watts. Why do you feel heat would be such an issue with the 1.2GHz 970?
John
The oft cited value of about 19W at 1.2GHz for the G5 may be true but it doesn't speak to the power management capabilities. Perhaps the G5 always runs at that level while the G4 can throttle down to something much less when it is idling. How about the power requirements of the rest of the system when the bus is running much faster? The devil is in the details like this.
Something like this must be going on. The battery in a Ti PB has a capacity of about 45 Watt-hours or so. At a draw of 19W you'd get a little over two hours use. Considering the LCD, HD and other chips also use power then you'd have to figure considerably less than two hours battery time with a 20W processor. Since a new battery can power the Ti Book for over four hours the G4 must have a mode that uses considerably less than 20W and so the G5 won't go into a PB till it has the same behavior.
Originally posted by neutrino23
We only have the barest pieces of the puzzle to figure out whether Apple could put a G5 in a PB. The public information is pretty sparse.
The oft cited value of about 19W at 1.2GHz for the G5 may be true but it doesn't speak to the power management capabilities. Perhaps the G5 always runs at that level while the G4 can throttle down to something much less when it is idling. How about the power requirements of the rest of the system when the bus is running much faster? The devil is in the details like this.
The 970 is also capable of throttling down. In fact, the top-end PowerMac actually runs both CPUs at 1.3GHz, and only gooses them up to 2GHz when the computation load requires it. This probably goes a long way to keeping the machine quiet under normal use.
Something like that would certainly be possible in a PowerBook: A 1.2GHz 970 that actually ran at 700MHz or so by default, and only ramped up to full speed if the load suddenly got heavy and it was plugged into a wall.
Note also the rumor that Apple is aggressively looking into fuel cell technology for batteries. There's no way that'll appear in the next revision, but it certainly demonstrates that they're looking for something better than the tech they have.
Originally posted by pscates
(snip)As I talked about in a thread weeks ago, I'm REALLY hoping this 15.4" represents a new widescreen 16:10 ratio. If so, then the vertical resolution - assuming it stays put from the TiBook - would be 854 and the horizontal is something like 1366, give or take. Nice and wide, with room for much palletes and iChat and collapsed iTunes.
Here is an example of how a 16:10 screen with the vertical resolution of 854 would be.
I could handle that!
Dell's 15.4" UltraSharp displays come in 3 resolutions: 1280 x 800 WXGA, 1680 x 1050 WSXGA+, and 1920 x 1200 WUXGA. The Ti is 1280 x 854. I hope we get get something easy on the eyes. What's up with the weird pixel ratio on the Dell?
Originally posted by Rolo
Dell's 15.4" UltraSharp displays come in 3 resolutions: 1280 x 800 WXGA, 1680 x 1050 WSXGA+, and 1920 x 1200 WUXGA. The Ti is 1280 x 854. I hope we get get something easy on the eyes. What's up with the weird pixel ratio on the Dell?
Weird pixel ratio? They're all exactly 16:10.
I would positively kill for a 1920x1200. 1680x1050 would be quite nice too. Of course, Apple will use the 1280x800.
Hurry up with the "being able to scale the entire interface arbitrarily" thing, Apple. Then you can make us both happy, and have some of the sharpest displays in existence.
800 sits nicely between 768 (what I'm currently used to) and the TiBook's 854, so I can dig that.
Of course, now I need to re-do my mockup screen to get a feel for what that's like (1280x800).
Originally posted by Alexander
Weird pixel ratio? They're all exactly 16:10.
I would positively kill for a 1920x1200. 1680x1050 would be quite nice too. Of course, Apple will use the 1280x800.
Hurry up with the "being able to scale the entire interface arbitrarily" thing, Apple. Then you can make us both happy, and have some of the sharpest displays in existence.
Why in the world would ANYONE want those two higher resolutions on a 15" screen? Are you nuts?
It would be damn near impossible to see anything! 1280x800 is probably really good at 15.4" @ 16:10. I'll dig it to no end...
Originally posted by pscates
Why in the world would ANYONE want those two higher resolutions on a 15" screen? Are you nuts?
It would be damn near impossible to see anything! 1280x800 is probably really good at 15.4" @ 16:10. I'll dig it to no end...
Three words; enlarge your fonts. 1680x1050 sounds great to me. I have a hard time running GoLive on my TiBook (1280x854) with a page window, site window and palettes all open. A few more pixels in each direction would be a big help! (Please don't tell me to buy an external display. I work with the computer on my lap.)
And I wouldn't tell you to do anything...I figure you know your work habits and desires more than I do.
Originally posted by ouroboros
My other point is this: if they aren't putting in a G5 in a powerbook and planning instead to introduce it in January, then how the heck are they going to fit an even hotter G4 in these laptops??? I mean realistically, I think that 1ghz, in my opinion, probably is the hottest they can get these things into a powerbook.
With the die-shrink the 7457 should run cooler than the 7455.
Originally posted by pscates
One word: no. My fonts are fine.
I was going to let this go since this has been debated elsewhere many times. However, I couldn't.
Lots of folks argue that with higher resolution displays they would have trouble seeing stuff. What can't they see? If the type is too small, enlarge it. It's true that some type, such as that in menus and dialog boxes can't be enlarged (yet) but I would argue that OS X system fonts are large enough that they could be easily read even if resolution were to reach, say, 140 pixels per inch. 140 ppi is approximately what the resolution would be if a 15.4 inch display was 1680x1050 pixels.
I've thought about buying a 17" Big Al PowerBook to gain some screen real estate but its screen is only 1440x900, only a slight advantage over the 1280x854 of the 15.2" TiBook I have now.
So as not to get too far off topic, I would really like to see a new 15.4" aluminum PowerBook with a higher resolution than the rumored 1280x800, and at the same time, a 17" model that's higher than the current 1440x900. Maybe I'm in the minority, but I really believe higher resolution displays would be much better than what Apple currently offers.
Lots of folks argue that with higher resolution displays they would have trouble seeing stuff. What can't they see? If the type is too small, enlarge it. It's true that some type, such as that in menus and dialog boxes can't be enlarged (yet) but I would argue that OS X system fonts are large enough that they could be easily read even if resolution were to reach, say, 140 pixels per inch. 140 ppi is approximately what the resolution would be if a 15.4 inch display was 1680x1050 pixels.
Yeah, try any palette on any pro app and see how useful your eye-straining resolutions are.
can i get a DOH.
Originally posted by cowerd
Yeah, try any palette on any pro app and see how useful your eye-straining resolutions are.
can i get a DOH.
Good point. Text in palettes is plenty small and as far as I can tell, not adjustable (at least not in Photoshop and GoLive).
DOH, rethinking my position...
Apple is once again (and hopefully for the last time) waiting for Moto to get in gear with the 7457. It is late, but if the Register is to be trusted (which, of course, it isn't) Moto have accelerated the schedule by a quarter. The 7457 should be great for the Powerbook, especially at 1.3GHz or so.
Regarding screen resolution, I think that Apple tries to maintain true WYSIWYG, so if you are typing a 10pt font, it really is 10pt on screen. The newer displays don't follow this, though. However, regarding pallet sizes, menu bars, etc, it seems that this is simple enough for Apple to fix via APIs. Rather than the size of such objects be specified in pixels (which change), it should be specified as a true size instead. That way, no matter the resolution, the size of the object remains the same correct size (in Apple's eyes). As resolution goes up, the objects will just look better, as more pixels are used to create them. I am sure some of the knowledgeable staff will correct me on this, but it seems like it should work.
Originally posted by iDave
Good point. Text in palettes is plenty small and as far as I can tell, not adjustable (at least not in Photoshop and GoLive).
DOH, rethinking my position...
See?
Originally posted by Thai Moof
The 970 wont appear in the Pbook until the wattage comes down (ie, after a die shrink). People are throwing around wattage numbers for both the 7455 and 970 that are not correct.
If you are talking about my wattage numbers, they were pulled directly off the spec sheets for the 7455 and 970. Why do you feel they were incorrect? Take a look at the 7455 spec sheet (you can find it at Motorola's website): running in full power mode, the processor uses 15-22 watts at 1GHz.
The 19 watts for the 1.2GHz 970 is shown as estimated typical wattage, as per the 970 documentation available on IBM's website. While higher than the 7455, 4 watts more for typical isn't that much higher.
The 970 documentation, however, didn't talk about any nap/doze/sleep modes, so I don't know if they are not available or merely not mentioned.
And take a look at the wattage of the oh-so-wonderful 7457: at 1.3GHz, it consumes 18.7-26.0 watts. Probably in nearly the same range as the 1.2GHz 970. Again, this is all from the spec sheets publicly available on Motorola's website.
This being the case, heat dissipation by the 970 should be very similar to that of the 7455/7457, as should battery life be (assuming the 970 has lower-power operational modes, as do the G4s).
What do you base you "wattage numbers are not correct" statement on?
The way things look, let's say Apple announces a 15.4" AlBook with 1.2 GHz 7457, along with all the other Al goodies. If the pricing is decent, it'll be a fine PB that should see lots of buyers the rest of this year. Even though I know G5 and G6 PBs are coming next year, that wouldn't stop me from getting an Al now.
Let's say MWSF sees the introduction of the PB G5 at up to 1.4 GHz in January. I'll bet it'll be a bit warm and have marginal battery life, say 2 hrs. (4 within the RDF).
Macbidouille's informant went on to say that PB speeds wouldn't improve until the .09µ process is used. She also says that the G6 would debut at the EOL speed of the G5, about 2.5 to 2.8 GHz. Remember at WWDC Steve said they'd be at 3 GHz in a year? AFAIK, that means the G6 (980) will appear a year from now so maybe the G6 PB will be announced in July, 2004, at 2.8 GHz! Imagine! The speed of the PB could DOUBLE in 6 months!
So, I need a new PB now and I really want a 15" AlBook but I wonder how long I can hold out for a G6 PB.
One thing's for sure, Apple will have an excellent 2nd half of 2003 but it's looking like 2004 will be gangbusters!
Sept. - Powermac G5 ships ("But Screed, Steve said August..." "Grow up.")
Dec. - POWER5 ships
*July through Dec. - 970 @ 0.13-micron
-----2004-----
Jan. - MWSF - Powerbook G5!!! (with 0.13-micron 970)
Spring/Summer '04 - 980 starts to roll out & 970 goes 0.09-micron
*Implying Powerbooks revved for the 0.09-micron 970s and the Powermacs with 980s @ a normally scheduled WWDC.
*Would the 980 = G6??
Screed ...well, it was clearer on paper....