How many manufacturers currently offer dual core processors? I don't have anything against Motorola, but I would expect IBM to manufacture a dual core cpu for Apple before Motorola.
Whether you offer a dual core CPU depends on what sort of cores you have. Intel won't, because their whole design philosophy is to make one core as powerful as possible. IBM already has, but only at the high end.
Motorola's in a different position than many of the other manufacturers, so what other manufacturers do isn't really relevant. Mot/Freescale has a cool-running, proven and powerful embedded core in the G4+. The die shrink to 90nm will officially make it small, so putting two on one die would be a simple way to boost the line's capabilities inexpensively. Plus, as mentioned above, it's something that Motorola has explicitly talked about doing.
Quote:
Hopefully Motorola's new alliances with SMT Microelectronics and Phillips will bear fruit, unless they've had a falling out??
Crolles 2 is online and operating. New fabs usually ramp up making simpler things than CPUs, so it's not making G4s yet. Mot/Freescale expect to have 90nm CPUs rolling off the lines this summer.
....., so what other manufacturers do isn't really relevant.
Amorph, Thanks for the response.
I suspect that designing a dual core processor will present unique challanges that Motorola will only discover during the development, testing and evaluation phases. Somewhat off topic, but Motorola hasn't even begun production of the MPC8540/MPC8560 processors which incorporate Rapid I/O, and these aren't desktop processors. They are so far behind in their roadmap, I don't hold much hope for any significant advances in any cpu that can be used in an Apple desktop/laptop computer for a while(2005/2006??).
IBM has a tremendous lead over Motorola in that they are and have been producing a dual core processors, even if it is a high end cpu. It seems to me that all the lessons IBM learned in advancing the technology of dual cores in the Power4 will be of immediate use to IBM in designing a desktop version. My only question is whether they will be able to do this @ 0.09µm or must wait until 0.065µm. I'd be willing to bet that this decision has already been made(possibly a long time ago - over a year maybe longer), now we await the results of this decision.
I wish Motorola good luck, but I still suspect IBM would be first to manufacture a dual core cpu for Apple.
I will be happily surprised if Motorola beats IBM producing a dual core cpu for Apple, as it would be beneficial to Apple.
Quote:
Originally posted by Amorph
Mot/Freescale expect to have 90nm CPUs rolling off the lines this summer.
Now that's good news. The G4 @ 0.09µm would be a definite winner in a laptop, especially if they can bump the FSB.
I'm rooting for a moto rebound. The G4 is still a solid portable contender. Wintelon has really only caught it and passed it with the better Centrino machines. Even there, Apple tends to spec a slightly anemic 45-55w/hour battery. If they'd just spec something in the 60-65 range, battery life would equalize nicely. Even some of the new features of this 7447A should help.
If Apple can sell me a machine with the same power as my 12" PB867, but it can run all day, and I mean really run, as in 8 hours plus of constant use, and maybe 5+ hours of intensive use, full disk access, writing CD's and DVD's, watching a film, etc etc... yet still keep it the same size and weight of my current machine, then I'm buying, and I don't care what it runs.
G5 or G4 ?
For laptops it all depends on two things:
Price, how could it not?
and
Battery life/heat.
If sometime in the summer, Apple wants to sell me a 1.5Ghz G4 iBook, I'm game for that, particularly if they increase the battery life and add a Superdrive and DVI out monitor spanning.
Yes, that's dangerously close to a PB feature set, but one would hope that the PB has become "the first 64 bit UNIX notebook" by then. And with FW800, PC cards, major graphics, more standard RAM, bigger HDDs, widescreens etc etc, the pro/wanabee pro market can still buy those.
Off topic yes, but hoping Apple does something aboutthe awful white of the iBook line. A nice silver, perhaps a gunmetal color, or even iPod mini like tints.
Whatever.
We need Moto.
12 months will pass sooner than later. The G5 is still mired at 2Ghz, Apple has added a second dual to compensate... sound familiar?
The G4 is still a solid portable contender. Wintelon has really only caught it and passed it with the better Centrino machines.
I don't understand what you mean. The G4 is trounced by Pentium-M and Pentium 4-M in raw processing power. With Altivec aware applications the situation may be different.
Quote:
Even there, Apple tends to spec a slightly anemic 45-55w/hour battery. If they'd just spec something in the 60-65 range, battery life would equalize nicely. Even some of the new features of this 7447A should help.
It is true there is a wide margin to improve battery life in the Powerbooks.
Quote:
G5 or G4 ?
For laptops it all depends on two things:
Price, how could it not?
and
Battery life/heat.
How about processor performance too?
Quote:
but one would hope that the PB has become "the first 64 bit UNIX notebook" by then.
The G4 was really a very good mobile chip, as was the G3 for a long time.
It's been passed by the better centrino solutions, but IMHO, P4-M was never a competitor. They were faster at the higher clock rates, yes. But apart from high end models in at least PB price territory and beyond (like Think Pads) they were also heavy, very hot, and had generally very poor battery life.
As for the 1st 64 bit thing, Apple will just keep adding adjectives untill it's true.
Ie, the first widescreen aluminium 64bit Unix supercomputer for your lap!
I'd like to see Apple sell fully featured iBooks and pBooks.
iBooks for price and superior run time, throw in superdrives and DVI-out spanning.
pBooks for power and fully loaded specification. Toss in 128MB VRAM. Add 2 independent FW800 buses for the video editors/musicians, all Pb's currently have all FW connetors sharing one bus. 512MB BASE RAM! And if they were really keen, they'd build that 512 into the Mobo like they do on the iBook/PB12 (albeit 128-256 in those cases) and have TWO EMPTY RAM SLOTS. In short, have the connectivity features that pros can really appreciate if they're looking for a portable workstation.
For something like the PB17, I'd say why not go with 3-4 RAM slots? It has the room. Basically, lets see the PB get features that would really stand out for the pro markets. BIG storage, BIG standard and max RAM capacities, BIG I/O. I/O is industry leading already, but why not turn a home run into a grand slam? Especially the FW buses. Lets have two independent FW800 buses (one of which carries a FW400 port for compatibility reasons) For A/V this would be a boon. Connect to cheap drives and a video camera/capture system simultaneously. Full speed access all the way, no bottlenecks. Excellent.
It's been passed by the better centrino solutions, but IMHO, P4-M was never a competitor. They were faster at the higher clock rates, yes. But apart from high end models in at least PB price territory and beyond (like Think Pads) they were also heavy, very hot, and had generally very poor battery life.
It is true that the P4-M based laptops were not a competitor with their weight, heat and poor battery life. But it is also true that their processors are today (and from some time now), MUCH more powerful than the speediest G4. At least so it seems from benchmarks available now and then.
The Centrino based notebooks addressed the weight, heat and battery life issues, while rising the performance even more in some cases. Furthermore, they often have equipment and components (optical drives, wireless, etc.) equivalent to those found in the Powerbooks and for a more attractive price, generally. So, what remains in the Powerbooks? Well, apart the exceptional hardware design, MacOS X and the bundled applications.
Quote:
As for the 1st 64 bit thing, Apple will just keep adding adjectives untill it's true.
Ie, the first widescreen aluminium 64bit Unix supercomputer for your lap!
While this may be true, I don't think they will try to market a 64-bit Powerbook as a first to something, when in the market there are/will be at least 3-4 manufacturers of 64-bit notebook computers. Perhaps Apple will wait the 65 nm IBM chips to make the move and market the new Powerbooks as something really unique. Not just to market them as such, but since these chips will certainly allow a 64-bit processor to go into a slim or slimmer than today Powerbook.
Quote:
pBooks for power and fully loaded specification. Toss in 128MB VRAM.
G4 or G5, I believe this is a certain change for the next Powerbook revision. Especially now that we have this ATI Radeon Mobility 9700.
Quote:
For something like the PB17, I'd say why not go with 3-4 RAM slots? It has the room. Basically, lets see the PB get features that would really stand out for the pro markets. BIG storage, BIG standard and max RAM capacities, BIG I/O.
Adding more RAM slots to the 17" Powerbook seems quite a logical step, but I am no sure if it is indeed possible technically. This would be the last and ultimate step to fully exploit the 32-bit G4 processor with 4 GB of RAM in a notebook. That would very nice, and I wonder why Apple did not make already the modification in the second generation of the 17" Powerbooks.
There is something more missing: option to include a 7200 rpm hard drive.
Oh, yes, one more: improve the display quality. And I don't mean resolution, though many people would like so. I mean display quality: brightness and viewing angles. At least the viewing angles, are very poor in the Powerbooks, even in the last ones. Look for example here, where a last generation Titanium Powerbook is being compared with a Sager 5660, and you will see what I mean. And people keep saying that the new Aluminum Powerbooks have displays no better than the ones in the Titaniums (actually, the display in the 17" Powerbook is considered a little dimmer). The 12" ones are out of game of course, in the iBook territory...
Oh, yes, one more: improve the display quality. And I don't mean resolution, though many people would like so. I mean display quality: brightness and viewing angles. At least the viewing angles, are very poor in the Powerbooks, even in the last ones.
Couldn't agree more.
I recently had the opportunity to compare an Apple 15" PB with several PC laptops at Best Buy.
The clarity of the PC laptop displays really stood out compared to the Apple screen.
he clarity of the PC laptop displays really stood out compared to the Apple screen.
That's my experience to, but those I've compared to was about twice as thick as the screens in the Powerbooks. That must count for something. I rather have a slim lid than a very bright screen, but that's just me.. I want my laptom to be as small as possible. If Apple could make a laptop that didn't have any optical drive, used the 1.8" drive in an iPod, a 10" display with XGA resolution, and not that bulky pastic case that the iBook have, i'd buy it in an instant!
That's my experience to, but those I've compared to was about twice as thick as the screens in the Powerbooks. That must count for something. I rather have a slim lid than a very bright screen, but that's just me.. I want my laptom to be as small as possible. If Apple could make a laptop that didn't have any optical drive, used the 1.8" drive in an iPod, a 10" display with XGA resolution, and not that bulky pastic case that the iBook have, i'd buy it in an instant!
IMHO there is a point where form doesn't get top billing over function.
The display on a Powerbook should be as clear as possible. At least as clear as similarly priced PC laptops.
Perhaps Apple will wait the 65 nm IBM chips to make the move and market the new Powerbooks as something really unique. Not just to market them as such, but since these chips will certainly allow a 64-bit processor to go into a slim or slimmer than today Powerbook.
The thought of not getting a PowerBook with a next-gen CPU for that long is a bit scary. But could it be true?
That's my experience to, but those I've compared to was about twice as thick as the screens in the Powerbooks. That must count for something.
True. Just look at the 20" iMac display . But I think this would affect more brightness than viewing angles. Perhaps I am wrong. Anyone knows for sure?
The thought of not getting a PowerBook with a next-gen CPU for that long is a bit scary. But could it be true?
Quite possible. Until some weeks ago, there was no roadmap fo the G4 from Motorola. This 7447A came from the nowhere. Or it looks like that, since the lack of roadmap made the G4 look like dead. Well, it appears that this was not the case. Not for now at least.
So, Apple almost certainly will put this one in the next Powerbook revision.
On the other had, Motorola publicly talked about dual core G4 for sometime this year. If Apple uses this new 7447A, and this would happen around this summer, they give Motorola the time to further enhance the G4 (for example with a move to 90 nm, which could bring significant improvements). So, Motorola would have practically one year from now to make a substantially better G4 for Apple, a successor to the 7447A. If they deliver indeed as scheduled , this gives IBM the time they need to finish a 65 nm G5 or whatever else of this size.
1) Motorola management incompetence was killing Mot SPS (along with the rest of the company). Mot SPS is now becoming Freescale, its own company, and the guy in charge has a great deal of respect as an engineer and a manager.
2) Motorola's dismal yields are the fault of their fabs, which they couldn't afford to run clean. But Crolles 2 is the fab for 90nm and the next few process generations, and Motorola is only contributing to that. They have partners, both of whom are quite capable of running a clean, efficient fab. So one of SPS' biggest problems is overcome.
3) SPS promised a "high performance PowerPC" this year.
Now, I'm as mindful as anyone else of all the historical caveats, but at this point there are more unknowns than anything else. Freescale appears to have licked its two biggest problems, so now we'll just have to see how things pan out starting this summer.
Meanwhile, IBM quietly reduced the top clockspeed of the 750GX from 1.1GHz to 1.0GHz.
...but at this point there are more unknowns than anything else. Freescale appears to have licked its two biggest problems, so now we'll just have to see how things pan out starting this summer.
G4's future is very obscure right now. But if Motorola or Freescale manage to produce a G4 at 90 nm, with all the current G4 issues addressed, I don't see the need for a G5 in the Powerbook. Not now, nor the next one-two years.
The G4 @ 90 nm would be an excellent mobile chip. Until the Powerbooks get 3-4 memory slots and 2 GB RAM modules for notebooks become available, there is no point to put a 64-bit chip in a Powerbook, if the G4 @ 90 nm is proved to be on par with the G5 in performance at equal clock frequency (actually it is mainly the floating point performance that suffers).
Quote:
Meanwhile, IBM quietly reduced the top clockspeed of the 750GX from 1.1GHz to 1.0GHz.
Specifically, what problems with the current G4 could a 90nm version rectify? Heat, yes. Higher clock speeds, yes. But some work needs to be done to enhance the framework around the CPU, right? Or is the G4 of its own divination incapable of being assisted in any way beyond a certain limit? (i.e., its crippled--compared to 970--pipeline will always remain relatively so?)
Specifically, what problems with the current G4 could a 90nm version rectify? Heat, yes. Higher clock speeds, yes. But some work needs to be done to enhance the framework around the CPU, right? Or is the G4 of its own divination incapable of being assisted in any way beyond a certain limit? (i.e., its crippled--compared to 970--pipeline will always remain relatively so?)
An integrated memory controller would remove the FSB bottleneck, for instance.
The G4 @ 90 nm would be an excellent mobile chip. Until the Powerbooks get 3-4 memory slots and 2 GB RAM modules for notebooks become available, there is no point to put a 64-bit chip in a Powerbook, if the G4 @ 90 nm is proved to be on par with the G5 in performance at equal clock frequency (actually it is mainly the floating point performance that suffers).
Yes, you are right, the G4 is a very good mobile chip in principle. Very much like the Pentium Mobile. However, its most remarkable weakness is the abysmal system interface. Until this is rectified (Rapid IO, goddammit), its low throughput is going to kill it for high-class computing.
Curing the interface is going to require a lot of internal changes, so that ALUs can handle the increased bandwidth. And the move to 90nm will require further changes.
So, although I still have a lot of respect for Moto (earned in the 68K days), they are a bit late with this. I sincerely hope I don't have to wait for a future Moto chip for my next PowerBook - because else I might be tempted to completely switch to the dark side.
I sincerely hope I don't have to wait for a future Moto chip for my next PowerBook - because else I might be tempted to completely switch to the dark side.
For me this is totally unthinkable. As a recent switcher I can say that there is no way that I would switch back to Windows as long as long as it looks and works the way it does. Apple's computers are nice but if they were running Windows or Linux I would much rather have paid less for a (less classy) but cheaper IBM-clone. What made me buy a Mac was Mac OS X. I love this system and G4 Powerbook or not, I am not going back to Windows any time soon.
[Edit] Also I must admit, half the fun with the Mac is you guys. There is no place like this in the Wintel world. I'm loving it here. And you.
Comments
- We are putting a Dual core processor on our roadmap.
? Classic PPC with AltiVec
? Capable of going up to 2GHz
? At 1.5 GHz power dissipation of 25 Watts
? And it will have system integration on it
? DDRI and DDRII
? Advanced IO ? RapidIO
? General Purpose IO
Looks like an integrated host processor (like the 8560) to me. Not sure if it would be useful for Apple.
Originally posted by rickag
How many manufacturers currently offer dual core processors? I don't have anything against Motorola, but I would expect IBM to manufacture a dual core cpu for Apple before Motorola.
Whether you offer a dual core CPU depends on what sort of cores you have. Intel won't, because their whole design philosophy is to make one core as powerful as possible. IBM already has, but only at the high end.
Motorola's in a different position than many of the other manufacturers, so what other manufacturers do isn't really relevant. Mot/Freescale has a cool-running, proven and powerful embedded core in the G4+. The die shrink to 90nm will officially make it small, so putting two on one die would be a simple way to boost the line's capabilities inexpensively. Plus, as mentioned above, it's something that Motorola has explicitly talked about doing.
Hopefully Motorola's new alliances with SMT Microelectronics and Phillips will bear fruit, unless they've had a falling out??
Crolles 2 is online and operating. New fabs usually ramp up making simpler things than CPUs, so it's not making G4s yet. Mot/Freescale expect to have 90nm CPUs rolling off the lines this summer.
Originally posted by Amorph
....., so what other manufacturers do isn't really relevant.
Amorph, Thanks for the response.
I suspect that designing a dual core processor will present unique challanges that Motorola will only discover during the development, testing and evaluation phases. Somewhat off topic, but Motorola hasn't even begun production of the MPC8540/MPC8560 processors which incorporate Rapid I/O, and these aren't desktop processors. They are so far behind in their roadmap, I don't hold much hope for any significant advances in any cpu that can be used in an Apple desktop/laptop computer for a while(2005/2006??).
IBM has a tremendous lead over Motorola in that they are and have been producing a dual core processors, even if it is a high end cpu. It seems to me that all the lessons IBM learned in advancing the technology of dual cores in the Power4 will be of immediate use to IBM in designing a desktop version. My only question is whether they will be able to do this @ 0.09µm or must wait until 0.065µm. I'd be willing to bet that this decision has already been made(possibly a long time ago - over a year maybe longer), now we await the results of this decision.
I wish Motorola good luck, but I still suspect IBM would be first to manufacture a dual core cpu for Apple.
I will be happily surprised if Motorola beats IBM producing a dual core cpu for Apple, as it would be beneficial to Apple.
Originally posted by Amorph
Mot/Freescale expect to have 90nm CPUs rolling off the lines this summer.
Now that's good news. The G4 @ 0.09µm would be a definite winner in a laptop, especially if they can bump the FSB.
If Apple can sell me a machine with the same power as my 12" PB867, but it can run all day, and I mean really run, as in 8 hours plus of constant use, and maybe 5+ hours of intensive use, full disk access, writing CD's and DVD's, watching a film, etc etc... yet still keep it the same size and weight of my current machine, then I'm buying, and I don't care what it runs.
G5 or G4 ?
For laptops it all depends on two things:
Price, how could it not?
and
Battery life/heat.
If sometime in the summer, Apple wants to sell me a 1.5Ghz G4 iBook, I'm game for that, particularly if they increase the battery life and add a Superdrive and DVI out monitor spanning.
Yes, that's dangerously close to a PB feature set, but one would hope that the PB has become "the first 64 bit UNIX notebook" by then. And with FW800, PC cards, major graphics, more standard RAM, bigger HDDs, widescreens etc etc, the pro/wanabee pro market can still buy those.
Off topic yes, but hoping Apple does something aboutthe awful white of the iBook line. A nice silver, perhaps a gunmetal color, or even iPod mini like tints.
Whatever.
We need Moto.
12 months will pass sooner than later. The G5 is still mired at 2Ghz, Apple has added a second dual to compensate... sound familiar?
Originally posted by Matsu
The G4 is still a solid portable contender. Wintelon has really only caught it and passed it with the better Centrino machines.
I don't understand what you mean. The G4 is trounced by Pentium-M and Pentium 4-M in raw processing power. With Altivec aware applications the situation may be different.
Even there, Apple tends to spec a slightly anemic 45-55w/hour battery. If they'd just spec something in the 60-65 range, battery life would equalize nicely. Even some of the new features of this 7447A should help.
It is true there is a wide margin to improve battery life in the Powerbooks.
G5 or G4 ?
For laptops it all depends on two things:
Price, how could it not?
and
Battery life/heat.
How about processor performance too?
but one would hope that the PB has become "the first 64 bit UNIX notebook" by then.
Apparently you missed the other thread.
We need Moto.
That's true. But I think they can hardly compete in today's notebook processor market. I would like though to be soon surprised by Moto.
It's been passed by the better centrino solutions, but IMHO, P4-M was never a competitor. They were faster at the higher clock rates, yes. But apart from high end models in at least PB price territory and beyond (like Think Pads) they were also heavy, very hot, and had generally very poor battery life.
As for the 1st 64 bit thing, Apple will just keep adding adjectives untill it's true.
Ie, the first widescreen aluminium 64bit Unix supercomputer for your lap!
I'd like to see Apple sell fully featured iBooks and pBooks.
iBooks for price and superior run time, throw in superdrives and DVI-out spanning.
pBooks for power and fully loaded specification. Toss in 128MB VRAM. Add 2 independent FW800 buses for the video editors/musicians, all Pb's currently have all FW connetors sharing one bus. 512MB BASE RAM! And if they were really keen, they'd build that 512 into the Mobo like they do on the iBook/PB12 (albeit 128-256 in those cases) and have TWO EMPTY RAM SLOTS. In short, have the connectivity features that pros can really appreciate if they're looking for a portable workstation.
For something like the PB17, I'd say why not go with 3-4 RAM slots? It has the room. Basically, lets see the PB get features that would really stand out for the pro markets. BIG storage, BIG standard and max RAM capacities, BIG I/O. I/O is industry leading already, but why not turn a home run into a grand slam? Especially the FW buses. Lets have two independent FW800 buses (one of which carries a FW400 port for compatibility reasons) For A/V this would be a boon. Connect to cheap drives and a video camera/capture system simultaneously. Full speed access all the way, no bottlenecks. Excellent.
Originally posted by Matsu
It's been passed by the better centrino solutions, but IMHO, P4-M was never a competitor. They were faster at the higher clock rates, yes. But apart from high end models in at least PB price territory and beyond (like Think Pads) they were also heavy, very hot, and had generally very poor battery life.
It is true that the P4-M based laptops were not a competitor with their weight, heat and poor battery life. But it is also true that their processors are today (and from some time now), MUCH more powerful than the speediest G4. At least so it seems from benchmarks available now and then.
The Centrino based notebooks addressed the weight, heat and battery life issues, while rising the performance even more in some cases. Furthermore, they often have equipment and components (optical drives, wireless, etc.) equivalent to those found in the Powerbooks and for a more attractive price, generally. So, what remains in the Powerbooks? Well, apart the exceptional hardware design, MacOS X and the bundled applications.
As for the 1st 64 bit thing, Apple will just keep adding adjectives untill it's true.
Ie, the first widescreen aluminium 64bit Unix supercomputer for your lap!
While this may be true, I don't think they will try to market a 64-bit Powerbook as a first to something, when in the market there are/will be at least 3-4 manufacturers of 64-bit notebook computers. Perhaps Apple will wait the 65 nm IBM chips to make the move and market the new Powerbooks as something really unique. Not just to market them as such, but since these chips will certainly allow a 64-bit processor to go into a slim or slimmer than today Powerbook.
pBooks for power and fully loaded specification. Toss in 128MB VRAM.
G4 or G5, I believe this is a certain change for the next Powerbook revision. Especially now that we have this ATI Radeon Mobility 9700.
For something like the PB17, I'd say why not go with 3-4 RAM slots? It has the room. Basically, lets see the PB get features that would really stand out for the pro markets. BIG storage, BIG standard and max RAM capacities, BIG I/O.
Adding more RAM slots to the 17" Powerbook seems quite a logical step, but I am no sure if it is indeed possible technically. This would be the last and ultimate step to fully exploit the 32-bit G4 processor with 4 GB of RAM in a notebook. That would very nice, and I wonder why Apple did not make already the modification in the second generation of the 17" Powerbooks.
There is something more missing: option to include a 7200 rpm hard drive.
Oh, yes, one more: improve the display quality. And I don't mean resolution, though many people would like so. I mean display quality: brightness and viewing angles. At least the viewing angles, are very poor in the Powerbooks, even in the last ones. Look for example here, where a last generation Titanium Powerbook is being compared with a Sager 5660, and you will see what I mean. And people keep saying that the new Aluminum Powerbooks have displays no better than the ones in the Titaniums (actually, the display in the 17" Powerbook is considered a little dimmer). The 12" ones are out of game of course, in the iBook territory...
Originally posted by PB
Oh, yes, one more: improve the display quality. And I don't mean resolution, though many people would like so. I mean display quality: brightness and viewing angles. At least the viewing angles, are very poor in the Powerbooks, even in the last ones.
Couldn't agree more.
I recently had the opportunity to compare an Apple 15" PB with several PC laptops at Best Buy.
The clarity of the PC laptop displays really stood out compared to the Apple screen.
Originally posted by XB Powerbook
he clarity of the PC laptop displays really stood out compared to the Apple screen.
That's my experience to, but those I've compared to was about twice as thick as the screens in the Powerbooks. That must count for something. I rather have a slim lid than a very bright screen, but that's just me.. I want my laptom to be as small as possible. If Apple could make a laptop that didn't have any optical drive, used the 1.8" drive in an iPod, a 10" display with XGA resolution, and not that bulky pastic case that the iBook have, i'd buy it in an instant!
Originally posted by Henriok
That's my experience to, but those I've compared to was about twice as thick as the screens in the Powerbooks. That must count for something. I rather have a slim lid than a very bright screen, but that's just me.. I want my laptom to be as small as possible. If Apple could make a laptop that didn't have any optical drive, used the 1.8" drive in an iPod, a 10" display with XGA resolution, and not that bulky pastic case that the iBook have, i'd buy it in an instant!
IMHO there is a point where form doesn't get top billing over function.
The display on a Powerbook should be as clear as possible. At least as clear as similarly priced PC laptops.
Perhaps Apple will wait the 65 nm IBM chips to make the move and market the new Powerbooks as something really unique. Not just to market them as such, but since these chips will certainly allow a 64-bit processor to go into a slim or slimmer than today Powerbook.
The thought of not getting a PowerBook with a next-gen CPU for that long is a bit scary. But could it be true?
Originally posted by Henriok
That's my experience to, but those I've compared to was about twice as thick as the screens in the Powerbooks. That must count for something.
True. Just look at the 20" iMac display
Originally posted by fred_lj
The thought of not getting a PowerBook with a next-gen CPU for that long is a bit scary. But could it be true?
Quite possible. Until some weeks ago, there was no roadmap fo the G4 from Motorola. This 7447A came from the nowhere. Or it looks like that, since the lack of roadmap made the G4 look like dead. Well, it appears that this was not the case. Not for now at least.
So, Apple almost certainly will put this one in the next Powerbook revision.
On the other had, Motorola publicly talked about dual core G4 for sometime this year. If Apple uses this new 7447A, and this would happen around this summer, they give Motorola the time to further enhance the G4 (for example with a move to 90 nm, which could bring significant improvements). So, Motorola would have practically one year from now to make a substantially better G4 for Apple, a successor to the 7447A. If they deliver indeed as scheduled
1) Motorola management incompetence was killing Mot SPS (along with the rest of the company). Mot SPS is now becoming Freescale, its own company, and the guy in charge has a great deal of respect as an engineer and a manager.
2) Motorola's dismal yields are the fault of their fabs, which they couldn't afford to run clean. But Crolles 2 is the fab for 90nm and the next few process generations, and Motorola is only contributing to that. They have partners, both of whom are quite capable of running a clean, efficient fab. So one of SPS' biggest problems is overcome.
3) SPS promised a "high performance PowerPC" this year.
Now, I'm as mindful as anyone else of all the historical caveats, but at this point there are more unknowns than anything else. Freescale appears to have licked its two biggest problems, so now we'll just have to see how things pan out starting this summer.
Meanwhile, IBM quietly reduced the top clockspeed of the 750GX from 1.1GHz to 1.0GHz.
Originally posted by Amorph
...but at this point there are more unknowns than anything else. Freescale appears to have licked its two biggest problems, so now we'll just have to see how things pan out starting this summer.
G4's future is very obscure right now. But if Motorola or Freescale manage to produce a G4 at 90 nm, with all the current G4 issues addressed, I don't see the need for a G5 in the Powerbook. Not now, nor the next one-two years.
The G4 @ 90 nm would be an excellent mobile chip. Until the Powerbooks get 3-4 memory slots and 2 GB RAM modules for notebooks become available, there is no point to put a 64-bit chip in a Powerbook, if the G4 @ 90 nm is proved to be on par with the G5 in performance at equal clock frequency (actually it is mainly the floating point performance that suffers).
Meanwhile, IBM quietly reduced the top clockspeed of the 750GX from 1.1GHz to 1.0GHz.
Do you read anything on that?
Originally posted by fred_lj
Specifically, what problems with the current G4 could a 90nm version rectify? Heat, yes. Higher clock speeds, yes. But some work needs to be done to enhance the framework around the CPU, right? Or is the G4 of its own divination incapable of being assisted in any way beyond a certain limit? (i.e., its crippled--compared to 970--pipeline will always remain relatively so?)
An integrated memory controller would remove the FSB bottleneck, for instance.
Originally posted by PB
The G4 @ 90 nm would be an excellent mobile chip. Until the Powerbooks get 3-4 memory slots and 2 GB RAM modules for notebooks become available, there is no point to put a 64-bit chip in a Powerbook, if the G4 @ 90 nm is proved to be on par with the G5 in performance at equal clock frequency (actually it is mainly the floating point performance that suffers).
Yes, you are right, the G4 is a very good mobile chip in principle. Very much like the Pentium Mobile. However, its most remarkable weakness is the abysmal system interface. Until this is rectified (Rapid IO, goddammit), its low throughput is going to kill it for high-class computing.
Curing the interface is going to require a lot of internal changes, so that ALUs can handle the increased bandwidth. And the move to 90nm will require further changes.
So, although I still have a lot of respect for Moto (earned in the 68K days), they are a bit late with this. I sincerely hope I don't have to wait for a future Moto chip for my next PowerBook - because else I might be tempted to completely switch to the dark side.
Originally posted by Smircle
I sincerely hope I don't have to wait for a future Moto chip for my next PowerBook - because else I might be tempted to completely switch to the dark side.
For me this is totally unthinkable. As a recent switcher I can say that there is no way that I would switch back to Windows as long as long as it looks and works the way it does. Apple's computers are nice but if they were running Windows or Linux I would much rather have paid less for a (less classy) but cheaper IBM-clone. What made me buy a Mac was Mac OS X. I love this system and G4 Powerbook or not, I am not going back to Windows any time soon.
[Edit] Also I must admit, half the fun with the Mac is you guys. There is no place like this in the Wintel world. I'm loving it here. And you.