tell me your guesses for iBook updates

robsterrobster
Posted:
in Future Apple Hardware edited January 2014
I'm going to buy an iBook after the next upgrade.

Tell me:



a. what the upgrades/changes will be



b. when it will happen



Get speculatin'.....!



My Guess: 13" Standard & 14" Widescreen, 800 & 1Ghz G3 processors with 1mb L3, Combo drive on all but low end model, bluetooth, 2 USB, 2 FireWire. Similar casing adjusted for size.
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 38
    thttht Posts: 5,605member
    Just incremental changes in the Nov 02 time frame:



    The 12.1 inch stays. The 14.1 inch stays.



    Low end:



    700 MHz PPC 750 with 0.5 MB on-die L2

    30 GB disk

    maybe 256 MB memory

    maybe 32 MB mobile Radeon



    High end:



    800 MHz PPC 750 with 0.5 MB on-die L2

    40 GB disk

    256 MB memory

    maybe 32 MB mobile Radeon



    The 14.1" screen version is just a 12.1 screen version with slightly better specs (larger disk, more memory). The PPC 750fx does not support backside L3 cache. It will not have 1 MB on-die L2 cache due to production costs.



    If Motorola can ship a 0.13u G4, Apple can use it in the iBooks at 667 to 800 MHz and bump the Powerbooks to 1+ GHz, but it seems they are having troubles with their 8460/8540 comm processors, let alone a G4.
  • Reply 2 of 38
    gumby5647gumby5647 Posts: 241member
    i expect the top to models to go to a 133Mhz bus.



    why? Because aside from the iMac 800. Apple has NEVER (that i know of) gone past the 7.5 mulitplier bus.

    133Mhz * 7.5= 1.0Ghz

    167Mhz * 7.5= 1.25Ghz

    66Mhz *7.5= 500Mhz



    and i think it would be a waste of time for Apple to bump it up 50Mhz to 750Mhz. So therefore, i expect 867Mhz on the top end...



    just pure speculation...
  • Reply 3 of 38
    robsterrobster Posts: 256member
    [quote]Originally posted by THT:

    <strong>High end:



    800 MHz PPC 750 with 0.5 MB on-die L2

    40 GB disk

    256 MB memory

    maybe 32 MB mobile Radeon

    </strong><hr></blockquote>



    Hey that's great!

    Despite my wildly over optimistic guess this is the kind of feedback i want, this makes me want to wait for the November upfdates if they do arrive.

    I'm actually selling my G4 PowerBook to buy the iBook and pocket the rest of the cash.

    The PB is too heavy, and too fragile...i'm actually on my second TiBook as the first was ruined beyond repair when I fell down some steps on an escalator, sick of worrying about scratches, paint wear etc...



    anyone else?
  • Reply 4 of 38
    bodhibodhi Posts: 1,424member
    As much as I believe that Apple should update both portables before the holiday buying season since they are in the retail business, they probably will not.



    Powerbook in October, quiet website upgrade.



    iBook at MWSF. New form factor with 13.1" screen, 700 & 800 MHz G3 Sahara, 32mb Radeon (not DDR), slightly higher res screen.
  • Reply 5 of 38
    matsumatsu Posts: 6,558member
    The iBook was a good deal when it started but compared to the competition it's price is a little high, standard HDD a little small, and optical options a little pricey. It's an entry level offering but it has a mid-level price and it's falling behind the game now, though it's still nice. The problem with it is that it's a whole generation behind in CPU tech (even in Apple generations) IT NEEDS A G4. Apple should be heavily into altivec on ALL it's machines. Altivec, while it can't fix all of Apple's problems, transforms the PPC from a slug into a very decent chip whenever any moderately intensive number-crunching takes place. Some may argue that consumers don't need this, but I beg to differ. MP3 jockeys, streaming video, iMovie, and photo-junkies can all make good use of the SIMD unit. Not to mention VPC, which more than a few potential switchers will need. For example, my work requires that I maintain some crucial info in an Access database. Yes, I understand there are alternatives, but it doesn't matter because the system was in place before I arrived and it works without problems, and no one would let me change it even if I wanted to. The prospect of running VPC in OSX on a 100Mhz FSB G3... <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />



    Now it doesn't have to be a G4, technically, I don't care what they call it, but it does need an SIMD. IBM originally talked up such a Sahara in it's press releases. This one was supposed to range from 700Mhz to 1Ghz and a revision was supposed to add SIMD and take Sahara from 1Ghz to 2Ghz.



    It would be a wise move to jetison the original iMac and move the iBook to a G4. We really don't need a legacy CPU in the line-up right now.



    However, since a move to a better CPU may not be possible right now, a move to add a mid-leve 'book could be made.



    From 1799 for a top iBook to 2499 for the bottom TiBook there is much too big of a jump. They need something to plug that hole in the 1999-2099 range. A modern Duo or a PowerBook 'lite', something with a G4.
  • Reply 6 of 38
    gumby5647gumby5647 Posts: 241member
    i disagree on the G4 thing...



    three months ago i would have said differently....



    But remember way back before the iMac got a G4? A company or two clearly stated that they would not optimize their code for the G4 until the iMac had a G4 in it. Well, the iMac recieved a G4, and little to nothing has happened. Im not even sure if that company did re-code for the G4. But the point is, is that now that the iMac had a G4 in it, we were suppose to see a flood of applications coded for Altivec. And this did not happen.



    I think Apple needs a low cost, low heat, low power CPU option (a celeron, if you will). And the 750Fx G3 is just that...





    ....and, until Apple can get the eMac down to 899.00, the CRT iMac isn't going to go anywhere....
  • Reply 7 of 38
    thttht Posts: 5,605member
    <strong>Originally posted by gumby5647:

    I think Apple needs a low cost, low heat, low power CPU option (a celeron, if you will). And the 750Fx G3 is just that...</strong>



    This is why Apple really really needs a 0.13u G4.



    <strong>until Apple can get the eMac down to 899.00, the CRT iMac isn't going to go anywhere....</strong>



    I'm not sure if it is really price that is hurting Apple outside of the economic downturn. If they have a machine of equivalent price and performance, I think they still will have trouble due to Wintel groupthink.



    Since Microsoft destroyed Netscape, they have successfully extended their monopoly to Internet clients (web browsers), so there really is no chance of any outside company becoming anymore than a niche.
  • Reply 8 of 38
    thttht Posts: 5,605member
    <strong>Originally posted by gumby5647:

    i expect the top to models to go to a 133Mhz bus.</strong>



    I was thinking this also, but I don't think Apple will do it unless the Powerbook has a 167 MHz FSB.



    <strong>why? Because aside from the iMac 800. Apple has NEVER (that i know of) gone past the 7.5 mulitplier bus.</strong>



    Post hoc fallacy, man. I know, it's just speculation, but this has more to due with the lower clock rates of the PPC than any policy for CPU-to-bus clock ratios.



    For instance, if there was a 1.5+ GHz G4, they would have to use higher bus multipliers since anything above 167 MHz FSB would be an expensive piece of PCB.
  • Reply 9 of 38
    satchmosatchmo Posts: 2,699member
    While I think the next upgrade will simply be speed bumps to the existing G3 processor (700 and 800 respectively) I think it's time for a G4 model.



    I'd love to see this:

    12" G3 600 mHz $1099

    12" G4 700 mHz $1499

    14" G4 700 mhz $1699



    Drop prices but increased performance. That's what Apple needs today. Increase the bus to 133. Sure the top of the line will be faster than the Powerbook 667, but only for a short while.

    Hopefully the Powerbooks will then go to a 167 bus and speeds of 800 and 933 or 1GHz.
  • Reply 10 of 38
    gumby5647gumby5647 Posts: 241member
    [quote]Since Microsoft destroyed Netscape, they have successfully extended



    their monopoly to Internet clients (web browsers), so there really is no



    chance of any outside company becoming anymore than a niche.<hr></blockquote>







    Apparently, you haven't tried Netscape 7. This IMO could very possibly unseat IE from the #1 position....



    I for one use it 98% of the time (AOL the other 2%)
  • Reply 11 of 38
    bartobarto Posts: 2,246member
    [quote]Originally posted by gumby5647:

    <strong>....and, until Apple can get the eMac down to 899.00, the CRT iMac isn't going to go anywhere....</strong><hr></blockquote>



    People I've talked to (IT staff, friends, family) are very impressed with the eMac, mainly the SuperDrive model.



    $3000 Australian for a computer that burns DVDs is considered a great computer for a great price.



    Apple maintains a minimum feature set. FireWire, USB, G4, GeForce 2 MX/RADEON graphics, 128MB RAM... they don't ship computers which Can't Do Shit?. That's a good thing, it gives the Mac platform more value.



    Barto
  • Reply 12 of 38
    thttht Posts: 5,605member
    <strong>Originally posted by gumby5647:

    Apparently, you haven't tried Netscape 7. This IMO could very possibly unseat IE from the #1 position....



    I for one use it 98% of the time (AOL the other 2%)</strong>



    Microsoft's Internet Explorer web browsers have <a href="http://www.statmarket.com/cgi-bin/sm.cgi?sm&feature&week_stat"; target="_blank">96%</a> of the market. With the advent of websites designed specifically around IE's plugins, pecularities and bugs, nothing will unseat it, since everything else will be incompatible.



    The price of Apple's computers are but one part of their problems. It's certainly not the primary problem though.
  • Reply 13 of 38
    smithjoelsmithjoel Posts: 240member
    The defference between a G3 and a G4 isn't that much. A little cache and some multimedia extentions. If they uped the clockspeek signficantly I'd me happy with that.



    [ 09-19-2002: Message edited by: smithjoel ]</p>
  • Reply 14 of 38
    matsumatsu Posts: 6,558member
    No, when any sort of SIMD capable app is used the differemce is enormous. Think audio, video, and big 2/3D files.
  • Reply 15 of 38
    satchmosatchmo Posts: 2,699member
    [quote]Originally posted by smithjoel:

    <strong>The defference between a G3 and a G4 isn't that much. A little cache and some multimedia extentions. If they uped the clockspeek signficantly I'd me happy with that.



    [ 09-19-2002: Message edited by: smithjoel ]</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Alot of the buying decision is also based on perception. Just as a PC user may bypass a Celeron in favour of a P4, a Mac user would do the same with a G3 and opt for the G4.



    Especially when Apple touted the iMacs and eMacs so much when they went G4.

    People believe anything less than a G4 is yesterday's chip.
  • Reply 16 of 38
    matsumatsu Posts: 6,558member
    The G4 is yesterday's chip, anything less is a calculator. SIMD is an important part of the mac platform, or at least it should be. The situation is even worse than the P4 to Celeron. The celeron is cache difficient but otherwise isn't too different from a P4. The G3 is missing out on the one redeeming quality PPC has left.
  • Reply 17 of 38
    frykefryke Posts: 217member
    The PowerPC 750FX (Sahara) _has_ a SIMD engine. Only it's not exactly AltiVec and it seems not supported in Mac OS X. You can get the details somewhere at <a href="http://www.chips.ibm.com"; target="_blank">http://www.chips.ibm.com</a>; ...



    I guess if Apple (and app devs) would support the SIMD in Sahara processors, the rush for iBooks would be too big and Apple would sell less TiBooks.



    Anybody know whether LinuxPPC devs have taken a look at this?
  • Reply 18 of 38
    matsumatsu Posts: 6,558member
    No it doesn't, it was supposed to originally. When IBM says "altivec-like" they're not actually talking about anything even remotely resembling a SIMD unit. They just mean that the CPU has a better IPC than the old G3, but it's nothing like a G4, and it doesn't perform like one either.
  • Reply 19 of 38
    jasonppjasonpp Posts: 308member
    The only thing stopping me from an ibook purchse is the crippled dual monitor support.



    At work I use a HP 6000 + dock with a 19" Viewsonic @1600x1200.



    Otherwise I use the 1024x768 LCD, but usually in situations where I don't need the extra rez.



    If the iBook had dual monitor support.. or AT LEAST external monitor @ 1920x1200 when closed I would buy!



    I know the Apple cripples the iBook on this feature, which is a sad, sad, thing.



    It's not that I don't think the powerbook is worth the extra cost, I do, it's just that I feel forced into buying more than I need.



    So I don't buy.



    Anybody know if the next iBook might have this feature re-enabled (I know there is a hack for OS 9, but OS X is what I want)
  • Reply 20 of 38
    clonenodeclonenode Posts: 392member
    Don't "wait" to buy the next model of the iBook. If you like it now and want it now, GET IT NOW!



    The next release of the iBook will not be the iBook as we know it now. Consider the iBook dead.



    Let me say this again; BUY NOW before the iBook you desire is gone.
Sign In or Register to comment.