May 20, 2002 7:14AM
Current Mac Hardware
edited January 2014
Reply 1 of 62
May 20, 2002 7:18AM
16Mb AGP 2x Radeon-M
$1199 and up... <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
nothing that great
Reply 2 of 62
May 20, 2002 7:41AM
Those G3s will be substantially improved over those they replace. I wouldn't scoff at them too much. They won't suit a power user but they will do nicely.
Couple other things could have been improved though.
Reply 3 of 62
May 20, 2002 7:45AM
Lets slim this thread to 1/10 of its size in advance.
[quote]Only 16 mb? Then Jaguar won´t run on it. Damn you Apple that try to sell outdated hardware
Jaguar will run perfectly fine on the new iBook
[quote]Only 16 mb. Then Jaguar will feel as slow as 10.1.4 on this "new" iBook
Apple have done more than added QE to make Jaguar fell and be faster than 10.4.1
[quote]Only 16 mb. Then Jaguar won´t take advantage of QE. Way to go Apple
Yes it will. Read apple.com again: "
nVidia: GeForce2MX, GeForce3, GeForce4 Ti, GeForce4 or GeForce4MX. ATI: any AGP Radeon card. 32MB VRAM recommended for
Reply 4 of 62
May 20, 2002 7:59AM
Right. But why should anyone spending 1499-1799 expect anything less than optimal performance. These machines were outdated even before they were announced. This may be an entry level computer in Apple's estimation but it has a mid-high level consumer price (except for the very bottom end machine)
16MB more VRAM wouldn't have killed them. It might not noticeably impact QE performance either, but it leaves that distinctly Apple taste of nickle and diming on its hardware offerings.
Reply 5 of 62
May 20, 2002 8:00AM
Worth a mention, these are the new 750FX G3's. 512KB L2 cache and a SIMD unit.
Reply 6 of 62
May 20, 2002 8:11AM
What is the bus speed of these new iBooks?
Reply 7 of 62
May 20, 2002 8:17AM
What SIMD unit? I thought IBM considered it but then dropped all mention of it from their PR cause they decided NOT to include it in Sahara untill a second version in late 2002/early 2003.
Reply 8 of 62
May 20, 2002 8:20AM
Unless the iBook is more than 800 mhz and has a faster Combo drive, and at LEAST the Quartz Extreme requirements are met, who would buy this new iBook? Oh, G4s would be nice, but a fast 750fx would be just as good.
Reply 9 of 62
May 20, 2002 8:25AM
I doesn't mention anywhere that I can find on Apple's web page whether or not this is a 750fx.
And afa[we]k, IBM's 750fx plans DO NOT include an SIMD unit in the first versions. Also doesn't mention anywhere that these have .13u, low-K, or SOI.
Apple would have made a big deal out of that. I don't think this is a 750fx.
Reply 10 of 62
May 20, 2002 8:32AM
When people keep mentioning the fact that Quartz Extreme requires optimally 32 megs, it is because it has to support any and all resolutions on possible duel monitors, (all shipping Apple Powermacs have AGP cards with duel monitor out)
Why wouldn't 16 megs work well on a laptop with a limited resolution of 1024x768 and no second monitor support even WITH Quartz Extreme?
You do have to consider that when the say optimal with 32 megs, they do have to consider the fact that people will be using QE at 1920x1600 on duel monitors.
These iBooks are better than what was previously offered. They are just about right for me as long as they keep the same size and same great long battery life.
Reply 11 of 62
May 20, 2002 8:38AM
You know Trumpetman that's exactly the kind of valid point I didn't think of.
There just might be some merit to that.
Still, I'd like to know what kind of G3 is in these new iBooks.
Reply 12 of 62
May 20, 2002 9:11AM
*wished he had $1,500*
Because we're human, we all have to whine and bitch. Don't think that I'm exempt.
So the only thing I would have liked was a 700-800Mhz G3. A 100 Mhz bump is kind of shitty. <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" /> <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
Reply 13 of 62
May 20, 2002 9:19AM
Boy, Apple's really into the "release one day before the rumor sites said we would" thing, huh?
Reply 14 of 62
May 20, 2002 9:23AM
While I'm disappointed it was a mere bump and not more. Come on, give us at least a 800mhz G3.
But on the other hand, you figure Apple has tested these new offerings with Jaguar. I figure they'll run okay...not great, but okay.
Ultimately, it boils down to a hierachy which trickles down from Apple's most powerful laptop processor, an 800 mHz G4.
You can only offer so much when you have so little headroom to play with.
Reply 15 of 62
May 20, 2002 9:28AM
The VRAM in the portable video is actually a part of the GPU itslef, its not actually a set of VRAM chips.
So they are limited in size (which also relates to power use and heat disipation) in how much VRAM they could add in such a tight space.
This is the consumer/student laptop. Its not a cheaper version of the PowerBook so there are going to be compromises made in specs to segregate the two lines out.
I really don't see the problem here. Most of you whiners will never buy one anyways even if it had a G4 in one model or 32 meg. VRAM in another because you would always find some deal-killing flaw in it.
If Apple is such a bad computer company BUY A GATEWAY AND GET OFF THESE BOARDS. <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
Reply 16 of 62
May 20, 2002 9:43AM
Interesting - I think Outsider is right that it's the Sahara, because of the 512 L2 cache. And no, the Sahara doesn't have an SIMD unit.
On the other hand, Sahara was supposed to debut at 700, and the 600 version also has the 512k cache. Maybe it's just down-clocked.
Overclockers could have a field day with this thing.
Though people will bitch about this being only 600-700 Mhz and not being a G4, this chip (if it is the Sahara) is much more advanced than any G4 out there.
Reply 16 of 62
May 20, 2002 9:43AM
We must complain about Apple, it's part of the experience.
Anyone know what the proc is? I don't think it's an fx (surely battery life would have gone up slightly if it were) I thinks it's just a plain vanilla G3 with some extra L2. AFAIR, the current G3 always had 512KB L2 capability, but wasn't always sold that way.
As for Radeon, it supports both on chip memory and off chip memory, they are limited by how much they want to spend, not by the chip (which can be configured with up to 64MB)
On a positive note they did use a 7500 with true T&L (which ought to help games). I always said they'd just use 7500. It's probably easier to support the MoBo's that way.
The reason there's always a deal breaker is that the specs so seldom match the price. For a few dollars less things become a lot more forgivable, but with Apple taxes, people want to get the absolute most machine they can afford. Fault Apple, not the whiners.
Reply 18 of 62
May 20, 2002 10:17AM
[quote]Originally posted by Matsu:
<strong>The reason there's always a deal breaker is that the specs so seldom match the price. For a few dollars less things become a lot more forgivable, but with Apple taxes, people want to get the absolute most machine they can afford. Fault Apple, not the whiners.</strong><hr></blockquote>
True. We pay a premium and should expect more.
Yes, and I don't want to hear "if we don't like it we don't have to buy it crap" or "buy a PC".
It's about as you previously mentioned, this feeling of being nickled and dimed.
But perhaps, this "milking us" process is one way of keeping sales steady to finance greater things to come.
Reply 19 of 62
May 20, 2002 10:24AM
[quote]Originally posted by Matsu:
<strong>I thinks it's just a plain vanilla G3 with some extra L2. AFAIR, the current G3 always had 512KB L2 capability, but wasn't always sold that way.</strong><hr></blockquote>The cx and cxe have just 256. I believe this is the Sahara.
Reply 20 of 62
May 20, 2002 10:33AM
But why no increase in Battery life? Maybe just a slight increase? Do you think that the quoted 6hrs now represents the actual battery life under OSX and not a very optimistic battery drain under OS9.x ???
The 35% improvement is in line with what IBM was claiming for the Sahara (clock for clock), hmmm...
I dunno. An 800Mhz sahara was supposed to consume 3.6watts. A 600Mhz version could concievably consume in the neighborhood of 2-2.5, shouldn't that make for a noticeable improvement in battery life?
Is the Radeon7500 much hotter/hungrier than the old Rage128?