I'm thinking they should all look like that. Just keep and old form iBook around for 799-999 range. Widescreen Combo for 1299, Superdrive for 1599. I'll take one, mebbe two.
It would work out to 1228x768, short, but the extra 200+ pixels should make it easier to get some real work done without resorting to dual display.
16X10 for all except one subnote book in iBook and one in PB for the crazies out there (you know who you are)
PB 17" widescreen (superdrive or combo drive)
PB 15" widescreen (super or combo)
PB 12" non-widescreen (super or combo)
iBook 14" widescreen Combo (superdrive as special order only if iBook goes G4 or G3 extreme)
iBook 14" widescreen DVD only (to keep costs down)
iBook 10" non- widescreen (for the true sub notebook insaneos that want a 3 lb laptop)...cheapest, entry level system...base is dvd only, can bto to get combo
no more 12" iBook as pscates has shown that you can make a 14" widescreen that is almost the same size (just a tad longer, but the same height and probably thinner)
I guess people need a visual sometimes, no one wanted to believe me when I started ranting about it.
Only, I wouldn't do a 10" notebook. Rather, I'd take the 12"PB, slim it down another pound (3.6 lbs ought to finally shut the subnote people up) leave the screen as is, because the height is critical, 768 is a minimum acceptable screen height. But even with the keyboard setting the minimum width, the top and bottom bezels could get smaller, leaving the sise bezels the same width. Take the speaker system out of the base and use NXT tech to make two long thin speakers on the thicker side bezels still left on the 12. Now, without speakers, the base itself can shrink about an inch or so in depth.
Not a super small sub, but made with a better screen than most of the widescreen subs, a full optical, and generally speedy bits, plus full I/O. Basically, using the same screen -- any smaller would exact too great an ergonomic penalty -- the formula is there to take the 12"PB down to about 3.5 lbs and from 8.6 to 7.6 inches deep, Same width, down to 1" thin.
Escher can finally get a subnote, that's still a fully functional Apple laptop, even though he knows the PB12 is already there.
Here's a question for you all to ponder. I like the idea of the iBook getting bigger, but we have processor issues here. If Moto did in fact cease all R/D on G4's and up, then that either takes them out of the picture as a supplier (they are currently under contract, but contracts do eventually end), or changes their roll as a supplier. So here's the question. If the only primary difference between the G3 and G4 is the AltiVec portion, then why not bump everything up to the G4 and have IBM (which currently supplies Apple with the G3's used in iBooks) produce the G4. I don't image it would be that difficult to fab. It would be nice to have an iBook running a G4, and when the PB's all go 970, there won't be a conflict of interest. The question remains, how long will Apple remain in bed with Moto?
Moto has the G3 covered .13u up to just under the 2Ghz range. I didn't hear anything about them stopping all development and production of the current G4's, just the FUTURE G4's. .13u parts were listed on their site, AFAWK these have already been developed, they just aren't producing them in huge quantities that we know of. But there's a short term path there for the next 12-18 months, if and when Apple needs it. No FSB improvement, but L2 goes up to 512KB, so performance should get a little better. While it isn't something for the PM's, it'll do nicely for one or two more revs. By that time IBM may have a G3+SIMD or lower power 970's, and if anything Apple knows how to wait it out.
I, for one, wouldn't count moto out of anything. They haven't looked too good over the last 2-3 years, but that doesn't mean they can't also craft a 32/64 bit chip that Apple might want to use. Embedded and consumer laptop demands are very similar; Apple sells a lot of iBooks. And if anything, we've learned that it isn't wise to depend on a single supplier (even IBM, don't forget how they've neglected the PPC ever since the G4 debut). We will see a 'G5/6...' in an Apple machine, though most likely not in the flagship performance models, and possibly not before an all IBM stint in the Apple line-up. They'll come back 'cause engineers like a challenge; at least one of the markets dear to Apple dovetails nicely with embedded needs, and because for Apple's sake, they need to know they just can't afford to trust any one single company with their future. Remember "choice is good"
Matsu, while I also agree that choice is good, why would Moto have to be that "choice"? I like options as much as anyone else. I think you're right when it comes to giving it all up to IBM, but then again, perhaps things have matured to the point where IBM would be a very good supplier. I think that Moto had its opportunity and decided to disregard Apple's demands. They let everyone in the Mac community down by failing to come through for us when Intel and AMD were pushing on with R/D. How do you forgive such behavior? I'd love to see IBM bring out a G4 (which I'm sure wouldn't take that much time to do) for the iBooks and drop Moto entirely. Let them feel the loss of several million in sales. Perhaps that's the motivation they need to get the ball rolling and realize just how important their relationship with Apple actually is. I would love to see a G4 iBook. I personally think that every offering Apple has should have AltiVec. I think that's the way to go, and will eventually be implimented in more and more software. I know my current iBook (600 Mhz) hates iMovie. Software will demand performance and I think IBM will provide that capability without significant price increase.
Some seem to think this would be a great wound to Moto. Apple buys at best 4-4.5 million parts a year from Moto. That's a lot yes, but Moto has pretty much said that they can afford to lose that business. There are a lot more than 4.5million routers, automobiles, motorcycles, headsets, routers, and cell phones in the world. Moto can afford to lose Apple's business if that means focusing on the real money.
Apple needs Moto, not the other way around.
IBM's needs **might** possibly gel better with Apple's. Mebbe they want the crown back, but really IBM makes it's money selling solutions and developing technology, NOT selling PPC's. There's reason to believe that IBM wil be more committed to the PPC this time around, but there's no guarantee that they won't be just as content to slap together some x86 solutions if the take up of the PPC business isn't what they expect. It's happened in the past. Just what was the cost of those IBM 604 workstations they're still hocking on their site? The worry for Apple is that IBM can afford to sell x86 in the mac's price range, and move PPC into a much more expensive space. It's still looked at as a custom solution, you go there to get chips for consoles, and those mac things, people still making those? You don't go there for cheap linux hardware, you don't go there for Wintelon alternatives.
In the end,
Apple needs IBM, and again, not the other way around.
What let either company forget about Apple at different times hasn't significantly changed just because IBM has decided that they might like to try pushing a semi standard *nix platform for a while to see how it goes. Either of them can afford to drop their commitment to the types of PPC's Apple needs any time they want with little averse affect to their bottom line. Apple, OTOH, cannot afford to be without a serious PPC supplier, and so they need to have both in que. Why Moto, becaue there are only two choices, IBM and Moto, nobody else makes PPC's, and a switch to another architecture at any time in the near future would be a near fatal stroke.
Some seem to think this would be a great wound to Moto. Apple buys at best 4-4.5 million parts a year from Moto. That's a lot yes, but Moto has pretty much said that they can afford to lose that business. There are a lot more than 4.5million routers, automobiles, motorcycles, headsets, routers, and cell phones in the world. Moto can afford to lose Apple's business if that means focusing on the real money.
Apple needs Moto, not the other way around.
.
.
.
In the end,
Apple needs IBM, and again, not the other way around.
Very well said, Matsu. One of few people who keeps sees the real proportions.
Matsu, I am well aware that Moto (much to my dismay) would continue to be alive and well without the PPC production for Apple. I'm also aware that IBM makes a ton of money and isn't interested in worrying about the pesky little PPC that they kick around like a hobby. I understand full well who needs who. That doesn't change the fact that Moto has been such a horrible business partner. Absolutely horrible. IBM has been just as bad in the past, yet under different management than the first escapade. I understand needing more than one supplier for the PPC. Monopolies are a bad thing and every Apple user knows that. But when it comes to the choice of being ignored by Motorola or switching to the 970 family, I'm switching to the 970. There's no excuse for Motorola's offerings to Apple in the G3 or G4 lines. They are, in a word, pathetic. A G4 iBook would be a great thing, but only if we can get someone else to make them. I think the only way Moto could save itself in the eyes of the Mac community is delivering a G5 that rocks the computer world. Sadly though, I don't believe Moto has the enthusiasm to make that happen.
The most fun I've had in Illustrator in a long time! And yes, the keyboard isn't there. Yet. It's late, I'm tired and there's no way I'm going to draw those things tonight. But I had a blast drawing the rest.
[Edit: add silly tagline] Ha! Couldn't resist...
[b]Also, a mock-up of the outside: GLOSSY white (like the first-generation dual-USB iBooks...even MORE so) with a slightly pillowed/inset chrome Apple logo (to mimic the LCD iMac's logo and chrome arm). Just a really smooth, high-sheen glossy white shell on the outside is what I'm picturing...
pscates, I have to say I think your iBook designs are really sleek and cool. Brings new definition to the term "Ice Book". Your speaker grilles are rather interesting choosing to vere away from the 17" PB grill design. I have to say though that the grills you chose are rather pleasing to the eye. Now here's a question for you? Would the speakers under them be chromed out like the Pro speakers Apple offers? Just curious. Keep up the great artistry and I'm happy you had a good time doing the designs. 8)
Thanks for the compliment, Brian. You know, to be completely honest: I don't know about the speakers. I'm not a techie sort of guy and I haven't really thought that far into it. I was debating on whether or not I wanted to start drawing the keyboard and it hit me that "hey, I haven't shown any speakers! Those will be easier than little keyboard keys, so...".
That's about as "into it" as I got. Also, there's no power button either. All that's coming, just when I feel like sitting down to do it.
I guess the speakers could be kinda whatever people want or imagine? I initially drew two gray rectangles and they didn't really look like anything except...well, two gray rectangles. I was just goofing around with how to make them look more "speaker-y" and I thought about some of those slit holes on the iBooks and PowerBooks that I've seen.d
I always have to sort of add a disclaimer/qualifier to things like this because inevitably people with WAY more tech/engineering/manufacturing savvy/knowledge than I tend to look at it from a hardcore production/economic/manufacturing point of view and begin pointing out why this can't do that, that can't be there, those things can't fit there, etc.
When applicable - and if coming from someone who knows what they're talking about and presents themselves as halfway human and agreeable - I try to make the proper modifications so it is more "real world".
But sometimes it's just a cool picture to draw and look at.
Thanks again. I used to do more of this type of thing. Been a long time (minus a recent iPod mockup earlier this year). But I'm so damn happy with the design/look of Apple's stuff (especially the consumer iStuff) that I just haven't felt the need to try and improve or whatever. 2-3 years ago, during the "15' CRT iMac era" it was mandatory and expected that anyone with a passing knowledge of Illustrator and Photoshop was to offer up their vision for a NEW, larger-screen iMac, preferably of the flat-screen variety.
Once that product came to be, a big chunk of my "what if..." and "I wish..." tendencies became satisfied.
And I love the design, look and feel of the current iBooks too. I just wish they had a 14" widescreen model with a G4, slot loading drive and 256MB RAM stock (with an empty slot still remaining). Any quarrel/complaint I may have with Apple from time to time is NEVER about the look/design of their stuff. It's about the silly things they do regarding specs and features across various models (not having FireWire 800, DVI/ADC, etc. on the 12" PowerBook, not allowing more choice/flexibility with optical drive/hard drive/video card choices, selling systems with only 128MB RAM installed when that's just enough to comfortably run the OS and the first time a newbie cranks up iPhoto or some other program - and doesn't understand about RAM and how OS X CRAVES it - he's left with the impression that Macs are clunky and slow, et.).
pscates, once again I agree with you on the point of specs. It would be cool to have a G4 iBook. Perhaps that's what the 12" PB is supposed to be. I'm not really sure. I just know that Matsu is also right, Apple needs to make your computer and pay you a commission for it. It's a cool design and I'm happy that you took time to share your ideas with all of us, if for no other reason than to give us yet another laptop to look at that we can't have!! LOL
I noticed the mic is now up on the display. This makes more sense to me than having it in the base, I wonder if there's some reason why it isn't in that location to begin with?
The new eMac makes a G4 iBook almost a certainty. Why would Apple create a new chipset for only the eMac? It's got PC133 SDRAM, no FireWire 800, but it has AirPort extreme. Sounds like iBook material to me.
There's a definite roadmap for the G3. With 1 gig -1.4 gig G3s rumoured to be slated for 2nd half 2003.
And probably SIMD G3s that scale way beyond early next year that more than over run the current snail bump G4s. Even if Moto can get to Rio...I think IBM will have 'mysteriously' over taken their efforts by then. Nothing to do with the pending 970, eh?
Faster iBooks? Yes. 'G4' iBooks? No. Give it up. But 'G3 Extreme'? Yes.
So. iBooks will get faster and cheaper...probably with a slight tweek in form factor perhaps. But they look great as they are.
The new eMac makes a G4 iBook almost a certainty. Why would Apple create a new chipset for only the eMac? It's got PC133 SDRAM, no FireWire 800, but it has AirPort extreme. Sounds like iBook material to me.
Barto
They've been making G4 mobo's for a long long time now, perhaps there is a greater degree of "RELIABLE" modularity in their components than we give credit for, and making new Mobo's is just a question of stirring in known quantities and drawing new traces? Everything on there is something that we've seen before, just a slightly different mix.
Lemon Bon Bon, curious about your distinction between the SIMD G3 and the G4, why bother dropping SIMD on the G3 when the G4 is already there? Just curious. Kinda like reinventing the wheel don't you think? As for the G3 "roadmap" as you called it, I think Apple needs to hop into a Jeep and go off roading for a bit to get off the so-called roadmap. If you had a choice to use one processor in an iBook, and your choice was final, what would it be? The G3 or the G4? I say the G4. We're all similar to Tim Allen in that we all want "more power". A SIMD G3 would be cute, but currently non-existent if I'm not mistaken. Perhaps they are around somewhere, but the current G3 offerings are, well, weak. Not that the G4 is anything to really, honestly, boast about. I think the 970 is the only cure for our lust of More Power. 8)
Comments
Do the bottom half too!
I'm thinking they should all look like that. Just keep and old form iBook around for 799-999 range. Widescreen Combo for 1299, Superdrive for 1599. I'll take one, mebbe two.
It would work out to 1228x768, short, but the extra 200+ pixels should make it easier to get some real work done without resorting to dual display.
16X10 for all except one subnote book in iBook and one in PB for the crazies out there (you know who you are)
PB 17" widescreen (superdrive or combo drive)
PB 15" widescreen (super or combo)
PB 12" non-widescreen (super or combo)
iBook 14" widescreen Combo (superdrive as special order only if iBook goes G4 or G3 extreme)
iBook 14" widescreen DVD only (to keep costs down)
iBook 10" non- widescreen (for the true sub notebook insaneos that want a 3 lb laptop)...cheapest, entry level system...base is dvd only, can bto to get combo
no more 12" iBook as pscates has shown that you can make a 14" widescreen that is almost the same size (just a tad longer, but the same height and probably thinner)
g
Only, I wouldn't do a 10" notebook. Rather, I'd take the 12"PB, slim it down another pound (3.6 lbs ought to finally shut the subnote people up) leave the screen as is, because the height is critical, 768 is a minimum acceptable screen height. But even with the keyboard setting the minimum width, the top and bottom bezels could get smaller, leaving the sise bezels the same width. Take the speaker system out of the base and use NXT tech to make two long thin speakers on the thicker side bezels still left on the 12. Now, without speakers, the base itself can shrink about an inch or so in depth.
Not a super small sub, but made with a better screen than most of the widescreen subs, a full optical, and generally speedy bits, plus full I/O. Basically, using the same screen -- any smaller would exact too great an ergonomic penalty -- the formula is there to take the 12"PB down to about 3.5 lbs and from 8.6 to 7.6 inches deep, Same width, down to 1" thin.
Escher can finally get a subnote, that's still a fully functional Apple laptop, even though he knows the PB12 is already there.
I, for one, wouldn't count moto out of anything. They haven't looked too good over the last 2-3 years, but that doesn't mean they can't also craft a 32/64 bit chip that Apple might want to use. Embedded and consumer laptop demands are very similar; Apple sells a lot of iBooks. And if anything, we've learned that it isn't wise to depend on a single supplier (even IBM, don't forget how they've neglected the PPC ever since the G4 debut). We will see a 'G5/6...' in an Apple machine, though most likely not in the flagship performance models, and possibly not before an all IBM stint in the Apple line-up. They'll come back 'cause engineers like a challenge; at least one of the markets dear to Apple dovetails nicely with embedded needs, and because for Apple's sake, they need to know they just can't afford to trust any one single company with their future. Remember "choice is good"
Remember "choice is good"
matsu, you wild assed liberal, don't you know comments like that belong in AO?
g
Apple needs Moto, not the other way around.
IBM's needs **might** possibly gel better with Apple's. Mebbe they want the crown back, but really IBM makes it's money selling solutions and developing technology, NOT selling PPC's. There's reason to believe that IBM wil be more committed to the PPC this time around, but there's no guarantee that they won't be just as content to slap together some x86 solutions if the take up of the PPC business isn't what they expect. It's happened in the past. Just what was the cost of those IBM 604 workstations they're still hocking on their site? The worry for Apple is that IBM can afford to sell x86 in the mac's price range, and move PPC into a much more expensive space. It's still looked at as a custom solution, you go there to get chips for consoles, and those mac things, people still making those? You don't go there for cheap linux hardware, you don't go there for Wintelon alternatives.
In the end,
Apple needs IBM, and again, not the other way around.
What let either company forget about Apple at different times hasn't significantly changed just because IBM has decided that they might like to try pushing a semi standard *nix platform for a while to see how it goes. Either of them can afford to drop their commitment to the types of PPC's Apple needs any time they want with little averse affect to their bottom line. Apple, OTOH, cannot afford to be without a serious PPC supplier, and so they need to have both in que. Why Moto, becaue there are only two choices, IBM and Moto, nobody else makes PPC's, and a switch to another architecture at any time in the near future would be a near fatal stroke.
Originally posted by Matsu
Some seem to think this would be a great wound to Moto. Apple buys at best 4-4.5 million parts a year from Moto. That's a lot yes, but Moto has pretty much said that they can afford to lose that business. There are a lot more than 4.5million routers, automobiles, motorcycles, headsets, routers, and cell phones in the world. Moto can afford to lose Apple's business if that means focusing on the real money.
Apple needs Moto, not the other way around.
.
.
.
In the end,
Apple needs IBM, and again, not the other way around.
Very well said, Matsu. One of few people who keeps sees the real proportions.
Originally posted by Matsu
Oh yes, me likey!
Do the bottom half too!
So let it be written...so let it be done.
The most fun I've had in Illustrator in a long time! And yes, the keyboard isn't there. Yet. It's late, I'm tired and there's no way I'm going to draw those things tonight. But I had a blast drawing the rest.
[Edit: add silly tagline] Ha! Couldn't resist...
[b]Also, a mock-up of the outside: GLOSSY white (like the first-generation dual-USB iBooks...even MORE so) with a slightly pillowed/inset chrome Apple logo (to mimic the LCD iMac's logo and chrome arm). Just a really smooth, high-sheen glossy white shell on the outside is what I'm picturing...
That's about as "into it" as I got. Also, there's no power button either. All that's coming, just when I feel like sitting down to do it.
I guess the speakers could be kinda whatever people want or imagine? I initially drew two gray rectangles and they didn't really look like anything except...well, two gray rectangles. I was just goofing around with how to make them look more "speaker-y" and I thought about some of those slit holes on the iBooks and PowerBooks that I've seen.d
I always have to sort of add a disclaimer/qualifier to things like this because inevitably people with WAY more tech/engineering/manufacturing savvy/knowledge than I tend to look at it from a hardcore production/economic/manufacturing point of view and begin pointing out why this can't do that, that can't be there, those things can't fit there, etc.
When applicable - and if coming from someone who knows what they're talking about and presents themselves as halfway human and agreeable - I try to make the proper modifications so it is more "real world".
But sometimes it's just a cool picture to draw and look at.
Thanks again. I used to do more of this type of thing. Been a long time (minus a recent iPod mockup earlier this year). But I'm so damn happy with the design/look of Apple's stuff (especially the consumer iStuff) that I just haven't felt the need to try and improve or whatever. 2-3 years ago, during the "15' CRT iMac era" it was mandatory and expected that anyone with a passing knowledge of Illustrator and Photoshop was to offer up their vision for a NEW, larger-screen iMac, preferably of the flat-screen variety.
Once that product came to be, a big chunk of my "what if..." and "I wish..." tendencies became satisfied.
And I love the design, look and feel of the current iBooks too. I just wish they had a 14" widescreen model with a G4, slot loading drive and 256MB RAM stock (with an empty slot still remaining). Any quarrel/complaint I may have with Apple from time to time is NEVER about the look/design of their stuff. It's about the silly things they do regarding specs and features across various models (not having FireWire 800, DVI/ADC, etc. on the 12" PowerBook, not allowing more choice/flexibility with optical drive/hard drive/video card choices, selling systems with only 128MB RAM installed when that's just enough to comfortably run the OS and the first time a newbie cranks up iPhoto or some other program - and doesn't understand about RAM and how OS X CRAVES it - he's left with the impression that Macs are clunky and slow, et.).
Barto
There's a definite roadmap for the G3. With 1 gig -1.4 gig G3s rumoured to be slated for 2nd half 2003.
And probably SIMD G3s that scale way beyond early next year that more than over run the current snail bump G4s. Even if Moto can get to Rio...I think IBM will have 'mysteriously' over taken their efforts by then. Nothing to do with the pending 970, eh?
Faster iBooks? Yes. 'G4' iBooks? No. Give it up. But 'G3 Extreme'? Yes.
So. iBooks will get faster and cheaper...probably with a slight tweek in form factor perhaps. But they look great as they are.
Lemon Bon Bon
Originally posted by Barto
The new eMac makes a G4 iBook almost a certainty. Why would Apple create a new chipset for only the eMac? It's got PC133 SDRAM, no FireWire 800, but it has AirPort extreme. Sounds like iBook material to me.
Barto
They've been making G4 mobo's for a long long time now, perhaps there is a greater degree of "RELIABLE" modularity in their components than we give credit for, and making new Mobo's is just a question of stirring in known quantities and drawing new traces? Everything on there is something that we've seen before, just a slightly different mix.