New Ti's out

13567

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 124
    tigerwoods99tigerwoods99 Posts: 2,633member
    Well I'm first to criticize Apple's products, but this is quite a sweet little machine. this is exactly what I expected, except for the prices being higher.



    800 MHz, 133 MHz bus, ATI Radeon 7500 32 MB DDR, titanium, wide-screen, 5 lbs....if you think about thats a nice laptop.



    The only thing I don't understand is how Moto's own website states the 7445 at 1 GHz. I honestly believe Apple sometimes deliberately doesnt give us the best they can. I was kind of hoping for the ATI FireGL 7800 Mobility w/64 MB DDR but a 7500 is what I was waiting for.



    Hmm...might want to get one for college. Remember how I wanted a PBG4 so bad? Well now I actually might try to.
  • Reply 42 of 124
    eugeneeugene Posts: 8,254member
    Apple is using the MPC7455. I assume the problem with going higher is cost and heat related.
  • Reply 43 of 124
    I thought the 7445 didn't support the external L3 cache.



    They weren't going to make a $2500 powerbook faster than a $2300 tower.
  • Reply 44 of 124
    According to the latest Motorola chart the 7450/1 runs at both 667 and 800 Mhz and supports 1 or 2 MB of L3 cache in addition to the 256K L2 cache. This is most likely what is in the new PowerBooks. The 800 Mhz model could be using a 7455 as that too supports a 1 or 2 MB L3 cache but I have my doubts. The 7445 does not support a L3 cache at all so thats out.
  • Reply 45 of 124
    How about L2 cache? Still at full speed???
  • Reply 46 of 124
    What I like about this machine is that it finally has better specs than my B&W G3 I bought in summer 1999. 3 years to get a 32MB video card in an Apple laptop...
  • Reply 47 of 124
    A few questions:



    1) What can we use analog-in for? Could I rip my vinyl collection to MP3's? Record songs w/just a cheapo mike?



    2) I am worried about the higher resolution. My eyes suck, and I have difficulty in OS X at 1024x768 on a 12-inch iBook. How does this change things?



    3) Re: the new 667 -- Is this going to be a cooler Powerbook than the old 667? What about the 800?



    Thanks to anyone who can answer my q's...



    Regards,

    Peter
  • Reply 48 of 124
    satchmosatchmo Posts: 2,699member
    My problem hasn't really been the speed, but some of the cosmetic and tactile feel of the Powerbook which I hoped would be addressed in the next revision.



    So, with this new Powerbook, I take it with a new resolution and all the other additions, that a new form factor is a ways off?



    Is the next upgrade another speed bump to 1 Ghz or will it be a whole animal?
  • Reply 49 of 124
    emaneman Posts: 7,204member
    [quote]Originally posted by satchmo:

    <strong>My problem hasn't really been the speed, but some of the cosmetic and tactile feel of the Powerbook which I hoped would be addressed in the next revision.



    So, with this new Powerbook, I take it with a new resolution and all the other additions, that a new form factor is a ways off?



    Is the next upgrade another speed bump to 1 Ghz or will it be a whole animal?</strong><hr></blockquote>



    I think it'll probably just be another speed bump but we'll just have to wait and see.
  • Reply 50 of 124
    mac+mac+ Posts: 580member
    In terms of upgrades, I think this one was pretty good. The DVI out and audio in are excellent news, as too the upgrade of the graphics card. Processor speed, as always it seems with Apple, comes in dribs and drabs.



    I bought a 550Ti about a week before they released combo drives. Oh well, I don't really burn CDs so I wasn't too fussed - but it did disappoint me that the value of my new purchase dropped so quickly. :eek:



    Anyway, I'll wait for a 1Ghz model with (hopefully) another improved graphics chip, Bluetooth built in (no external card required), a SuperDrive (it is meant to be a pro model after all) and better case construction. If they can fix the paint issue and make it black again, then that would be cool, too.



    Still happy with what I've got at the moment - just thought I'd add my 0.02 worth.
  • Reply 51 of 124
    mac voyermac voyer Posts: 1,283member
    I'm with you, Tiger.



    Why is Apple not using the best parts money can buy? If Apple cares so much about graphics professionals, why are they not using the current high-end card? There are better cards from ATI and Nvidia. Is it that they can't do it or that they won't do it? Is there a technical reason for not using the best, or is it economic? PCs are doing it so what's the technical barrier for Apple? They are extracting an extra 200 to 300 dollars for the PB line so I can't believe they don't make enough money to offer the best.



    Maybe I'm just looking at it from a PC user's point of view. When shopping for a top of the line product, I expect to see current top of the line parts in that product or I will move on to the next one.



    Will someone please explain this graphics card issue to me? Thanks.
  • Reply 52 of 124
    agent302agent302 Posts: 974member
    [quote]Originally posted by apple.otaku:

    <strong>According to the latest Motorola chart the 7450/1 runs at both 667 and 800 Mhz and supports 1 or 2 MB of L3 cache in addition to the 256K L2 cache. This is most likely what is in the new PowerBooks. The 800 Mhz model could be using a 7455 as that too supports a 1 or 2 MB L3 cache but I have my doubts. The 7445 does not support a L3 cache at all so thats out.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    I'd bet that it's the 7455, like Eugene said, because it runs cooler at equivalent clockspeeds to the 7450/1.



    For all asking about the cache: according the <a href="http://www.apple.com/powerbook/specs.html"; target="_blank">Powerbook Specs site</a>, the processor has 256k of L2 cache running at full processor speed, and 1 MB of DDR L3 cache running at effectively 2:1 (and I assume that the standard 64k L1 cache is still there)



    Edit: I was so pleased with this update that I just bought the 667 one!



    [ 04-30-2002: Message edited by: agent302 ]</p>
  • Reply 53 of 124
    [quote]Originally posted by Mac Voyer:

    <strong>I'm with you, Tiger.



    Why is Apple not using the best parts money can buy? If Apple cares so much about graphics professionals, why are they not using the current high-end card? </strong><hr></blockquote>Do you have any power consumption/heat production specs on these higher-end cards?



    I don't totally agree though - last Dell ad I saw had a laptop with "32 Mb shared video RAM" for a similar price ot the low-end TiBook. If you bought an IBM, you'd pay a whole load more for the same spec, at least in the UK.
  • Reply 54 of 124
    splinemodelsplinemodel Posts: 7,311member
    The PC world hase the advantage of about 1000 times the R&D of Apple. The fact that Apple manages to keep up fairly well is a tribute to their hardware design department.



    They have strict power guidlines with the PBG4 especially. Usually, new graphics chips require a lot of power compared with recent reworks of older ones, so that may be an issue. And to tell you the truth, professionals don't tend to utilize a graphics card as much as you'd think. There aren't a lot of notebook-worthy apps that directly access the graphics hardware. It's mostly useful for games. 32 MB, also, should be enough for 2 monitors, unless I'm doing my math wrong.
  • Reply 55 of 124
    neutrino23neutrino23 Posts: 1,525member
    [quote]Originally posted by Mac Voyer:

    <strong>

    Why is Apple not using the best parts money can buy? </strong> (snip)<hr></blockquote>



    I'm not trying to be an apologist for all Apple's designs, however, I judge from looking at Apple's products that they try to shoot for the sweet spot balancing cost, heat and power consumption, reliability, and performance. It's not called the bleeding edge for nothing. If you go for the ultimate in performance the last ten percent can be very expensive (money, heat, power, reliability, money etc.). By being a little conservative in their design they can build a less expensive, longer lasting, more reliable product that only gives up a little on performance.



    Compare that with some brands of computers that are just a joke when it comes to specs. I had one friend with a laptop that had a built in IR port. However, a notice that came with the laptop warned you not to try to use it or it would damage the hardware. It didn't work but it was in the specs.
  • Reply 56 of 124
    neutrino23neutrino23 Posts: 1,525member
    [quote]Originally posted by CoolHandPete:

    <strong>A few questions:



    1) What can we use analog-in for? Could I rip my vinyl collection to MP3's? Record songs w/just a cheapo mike?



    2) I am worried about the higher resolution. My eyes suck, and I have difficulty in OS X at 1024x768 on a 12-inch iBook. How does this change things?



    3) Re: the new 667 -- Is this going to be a cooler Powerbook than the old 667? What about the 800?



    Thanks to anyone who can answer my q's...



    Regards,

    Peter</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Until recently all Mac's came with analog input. The ones that don't have it now can all use inexpensive USB inputs (such as iMic). Audio input is processed through the OS and can be recorded by many programs to the HD. Try the free program Coaster (version tracker for OS 9) to learn about this by recording from the radio or digitizing your tapes and albums. As for the cheapo mic - the quality of the recording varies greatly with the quality of the microphone. Recording with a microphone is an art unto itself.



    The resolution on the new TiBook sounds similar to that of the iBook. Fortunately, many programs allow you to scale up fonts and such to make them easier to see if that is important. OS X itself allows you to scale icon sizes and you can separately set the size of the display font.



    Just my opinion but I doubt there will be any dramatic change in the heat produced by these 'books.
  • Reply 57 of 124
    giantgiant Posts: 6,041member
    [quote]Originally posted by agent302:

    <strong>



    ...1 MB of DDR L3 cache running at effectively 2:1 (and I assume that the standard 64k L1 cache is still there)



    [ 04-30-2002: Message edited by: agent302 ]</strong><hr></blockquote>



    According to the <a href="http://www.apple.com/powerbook/faq.html"; target="_blank">powerbook faq</a> the L3 cache runs at a 4:1 ratio to the processor
  • Reply 58 of 124
    agent302agent302 Posts: 974member
    [quote]Originally posted by giant:

    <strong>



    According to the <a href="http://www.apple.com/powerbook/faq.html"; target="_blank">powerbook faq</a> the L3 cache runs at a 4:1 ratio to the processor</strong><hr></blockquote>



    It is 4:1, but it's DDR, so it's effectively 2:1.
  • Reply 59 of 124
    giantgiant Posts: 6,041member
    [quote]Originally posted by agent302:

    <strong>



    It is 4:1, but it's DDR, so it's effectively 2:1.</strong><hr></blockquote>





    Of course, but because of that and the way you worded it, saying 2:1 and DDR would have been misleading to someone who didn't look at the faq page. I'm not doing it to correct you, I'm just making it clearer



    Oh, PS. There's my cache I wanted in the other thread...



    [ 04-30-2002: Message edited by: giant ]</p>
  • Reply 60 of 124
    agent302agent302 Posts: 974member
    [quote]Originally posted by giant:

    <strong>





    Of course, but because of that and the way you worded it, saying 2:1 and DDR would have been misleading to someone who didn't look at the faq page. I'm not doing it to correct you, I'm just making it clearer



    Oh, PS. There's my cache I wanted in the other thread...



    [ 04-30-2002: Message edited by: giant ]</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Gotcha. Sorry for the lack of clarification (that's why I said, "effectively" 2:1). On the cache, you win, I concede
Sign In or Register to comment.