Why must the ibook improve? It seems to be doing really well if my experience means anything. I live in Athens GA. A town with not ONE Apple reseller. A big university town, yes, but the book store only recently started having Mac demo units. You still have to order them from Apple. In other words, you could not walk out of any store within 1 hour of here with a mac. Still, I see ibooks (dual USB and beyond) everywhere. There are times now that the mac laptops out number the PC laptops in the coffeeshops. I kid you not. 2 years ago, I was often the only one using a mac. Since the ibook2 came out, this is not the case any more.
As for all this bitching about speed.... I don't know when the last time I looked at an x86 proc with jealousy. I use a mac. I wouldn't have it any other way. I suspect there are more and more people like me who just don't care about the proc speed. Just quit the bitching, please. Buy what suits your needs, it's not life and death.
I had the exact same experience as you!! I was also trying to edit down a short digital moview. At that time I only had a wintel machine (very similar spec to yours), and following a particularly wasteful evening trying to scan documents and coping with TWAIN Driver in use messages, I decided to take the plunge and get a new iMac.
What a friggin' pleasure it has been!! Only a single crash in the 2 months I've had it (could be a bug in iMovie as it crashed twice when selecting the end of a moview while it was rendering some effects), and it works completlky intuitively.
My wife was worried about the change ("but we've used Windows for years....") but it took all of 2 days to convert her.
<strong>The new iBooks address the only problem with the my 600mhz model, the video card. And a speedbump i suppose is due, so thus we have the Radeon 700mhz
so shut up</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well say, and i will add that it is not only a 100 mhz speed bump, it's more than that i am waiting for the benchmarks, but according to the previous reports about the sahara chip and dispite the fact he did not use the 200 mhz front bus, i expect that the new i book at 700 mhz look like an i book 800 mhz.
So in the paper it's only a 100 hz speedbump, buf for the performance it's a 200 mhz one : it's a 30 % increase of the speed and like you said a much better video card section.
Does the performance increase come more from the CPU or the GPU?
I'm still not convinced that this is the 750FX 'Sahara'. It may be, but the battery life is nowhere near what IBM suggested for the Sahara. (they were supposed to increase performance by up to 30% or decrease power-consumption by up to 50%.) Apple claims to have raised performance by a similar margin, but we have to account for the better GPU, and they've raised the actual clock by 100Mhz. Seeing as an 800Mhz Sahara was to consume noticeably less power than a 600Mhz 750gxe, I would suspect that 600 and 700Mhz Sahara's would lead to at least a small improvement in battery life. These models sport exactly the same battery life as the previous models 5 and 6 hrs for the 12" and 14" models respectively.
Maybe they are Sahara's, but then IBM certainly has not lived up to their hype regarding Sahara's efficiency.
Where the heck can we get a PDF or service document that says exactly what CPU they're using?
Apple says a 35% speed increase above previous iBooks - that's significant. And IBM now says Sahara is 600Mhz-1Ghz, when initially they said it started at 700Mhz. And the 512 cache of course.
I'm not sure about the battery life. You'd think it would be better. But they do have more of a graphics card in there now, and those battery lifes were always nonsense anyway. I've never seen my PowerBook's supposed 5-hour life show much beyond 2 hours.
I usually don't defend the Mhz myth, but I think some of you critics really are falling prey to it here. Would you rather have a slower 750cxe just to say you have higher Mhz? That's exactly what the Mhz myth is all about: confusing real speed with numbers.
And this isn't the GPU they're talking about. From Apple:
[quote]The new iBook runs up to 35 percent faster than previous models in CPU performance tests such as encoding a song from an audio CD into an MP3 file using iTunes?.<hr></blockquote>
I'd like to see that verified by independent tests, but if true, it's exactly what we need from a new chip - not higher but empty Mhz ratings.
I concur. People don't seem to remember the elegance of the Apple (laptop) user experience... head and shoulders above all other (PC) offerings. Of course, there's room for improvement, but they are certainly on the right track.
Remember also that the iBooks aren't competing with the highest-end P4 PC laptops, but rather the low-cost, cheap video card, 8 lb cost-cutters. When analyzed in this context, these new offerings are VERY good. Very good.
Of course we'd all like Apple to offer an 800 mhz G4 iBook for 1199... but, frankly, it just
isn't possible. So, given the circumstances, it's a heck of an update.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Bear in mind, we've been using and doing the things the Mac way for years. Hence we believe it's the best and intuitive interface. But that's also part to repetitive use.
I've seen many PC users who are very productive on their Wintel laptops. It boils down to conditioning.
And while a 800 mhz G4 iBook for $1199 might not be possible, certainly one should be possible and available at $1799.
[quote]I've seen many PC users who are very productive on their Wintel laptops. It boils down to conditioning.<hr></blockquote>
yes yes yes,
but I really HATE the marks the electroshocks leave from the negative reinforcement required! <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
I think I mentioned this before. Apple's (and everybody else's) battery life figures are fairly optimistic. Furthermore, it seems they represent OS9.x (usage) figures moreso than OSX figures. If the latest power drain stats were derived using a (seemingly less portable friendly) OSX test, then this may indeed be a Sahara we're looking at. From what I've read the difference in powerdrain between OS9 and OSX usage is quite significant. A machine that could be faster and still return similar battery life under OSX, WOULD in fact be a REAL IMPROVEMENT! -- battery wise.
I await the first independent test.
I don't thing that a 16MB Radeon is much hotter than the very old 8MB Rage.
As for the iBook being a budget laptop machine, it isn't. It's priced well within the mid to high end (consumer) space on all but the cheapest model. The 12" is a cool product 'cause you don't really get a nice form factor like that with the same features and at the same price from anyone else. But the 14" is no great deal. For 2648 Canadian I priced out a **gasp** DELL **gasp** with a 1.4Ghz P4, 30GB HDD, 14.1" XGA screen, Combo drive, and 64MB GeForce4Go, and 802.11b wireless built-in.
So a P4 1.4 isn't the fastest x86 and may actually be slower than a P3 1.1Ghz for a few tasks, it weighs more than the 14" iBook has the same storage/optical spec, and a leagues better video system -- also has wireless built in, all for a 150 Canadian less than the 14" iBook. The iBook software, frankly, kicks the DELL's ass, and it looks much better, and weighs 6.9 pounds versus 7.2 to 7.9 (15" screen option). Thus, you can call the weights roughly equal (for 14") and of course the iBook is thinner at 1.3 vs 1.7"
This is not to say the dell is better or the iBook is better, just that the prices (at least for the 14's) are in line with mid to high consumer prices, and not anywhere near entry level.
Budget laptop machines now sell in the 1000-1500 CANADIAN price range. They're CRAP (mostly) but they're cheap. Apple's cheapest notebook isn't quite crap, but it also isn't quite cheap. The combo700/12.1" looks to me like a good deal (not just for an Apple, but in general) the rest are over-priced to varying degrees.
The current iBook has a wonderful price/performance ratio that PC users should envy. Here is an example:
Last Friday, my workplace finally got me a new laptop (to be used for work at home and on the weekends). My brand new Dell Latitude C840 has a 1.6GHz CPU, a Geforce4, 256MB Ram (need to get that bumped up), a 30GB Hard drive, and a nice 1600x1200 UXGA screen. This machine is probably as fast as my desktop workstation and its features are similar to the features that PC users love to quote against Mac users in an attempt to "enlighten" them.
So what do I think of my new laptop? It is a great desktop machine, but you have serious issues if you want to unplug it. When unplugged, the screen auto dims, the CPU downclocks and you still only get 3 hours of battery life when the machine sits idle. With a single battery, this machine would probably only last for one hour of anything that was CPU intensive.
The solution of course is to drop the floppy bay and to add a second battery. So now my dell weighs in at over eight pounds and has a rather unique center of mass. Not only do I have to have two batteries, but I just paid the Dell second battery tax (they aren't free). Most people usually do not consider the cost of their second battery when shopping.
How about it's G4 crushing P4? Well, when it is plugged into a wall socket it does well, and it puts out enough heat to toast bread or to keep my coffee warm. This CPU is thermonuclear. How about when the CPU is not plugged into the wall? I doubt that it crushes the G4 as easily. What is the point of having a CPU that you can't power most of the time? I wanted a laptop so that I could go somewhere else and write code, not so that I would have to have an umbilical holding me in place.
And the Geforce4? It is a great video card, but I am not planning on playing games on this machine (sorry folks, C++ is more fun than Diablo II and you get paid too). I wish that I could take out the Nvidia card and replace it with a card better designed for portable use.
The glorious 15 inch UXGA screen? It is great when you aren't on the road. Whenever you unplug the laptop from the wall, it kindly dims itself to save battery life.
Oh and Windows XP? It is a nice OS for the colorblind. The person who chose the colors for this OS has about as much subtlety as a George Lucas Ep II love scene. I can change the theme to look like Win2k, but the OS still behaves like WinXP.
What about the cost? This machine cost just under 3k. Not a very cheap machine. Not even in the same league as an iBook, and so not even comprable to an iBook. The iBook is capable of running for a sustained period of time on one battery. The iBook costs quite a bit less. My next personal computer will probably be a TiBook and I'll let my work buy me all the boat anchors it wants.
A laptop by definition means a machine that will not routinely be seated on one's desk. I wish that most PC vendors could figure this out. My new Dell is a good desktop machine and a lukewarm laptop machine. In terms of what I need, it is overpowered in areas that I don't really need and underpowered in areas that I do need.
Considering battery life, the CPU represant a small % of the watt consumption (we are speaking of Mac here, not of PC where the cpu represant a more importatnt watt consomption), therefore the improvement in that matter did not change things a lot (the G3 750 fxe was not a huge watt eater).
This explains why the characteristic of the battery life did not change a lot.
<strong>Budget laptop machines now sell in the 1000-1500 CANADIAN price range. They're CRAP (mostly) but they're cheap. Apple's cheapest notebook isn't quite crap, but it also isn't quite cheap. The combo700/12.1" looks to me like a good deal (not just for an Apple, but in general) the rest are over-priced to varying degrees.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm not sure if you have used a "budget" laptop. Your average budget laptop has no video hardware (onboard, borrowing "up to" 12 MB of system RAM for use as video RAM), has a maximum RAM capacity of 128 MB, and has a CD-ROM drive. For $699 US. Woohoo. Don't even mention the screens on those things. Plus they weigh about 8 pounds.
you see...the chips in the new ibooks, are, in fact, sahara g3s. it seems they're officially called "sahara 750fx"</strong><hr></blockquote>The only thing I dislike about that article is that it promotes the "IBM is better" myth with this:
[quote]It?s frustrating that Apple insists on holding back clock speeds in its last remaining G3 platform so they will not nominally exceed clock speeds of the laggardly-developing G4s in the professional machines. There would appear to be no other reason why the top iBook model could not be equipped with IBM?s 1 gigahertz 750FX chip.<hr></blockquote>That's just wrong. IBM has said that the chip will start out at 700 (now apparently clocked down to 600) and scale to 1 ghz by the end of 2002. There just is no 1Ghz Sahara yet.
I guess, Keilwerth, you missed the part where I flatly said that budget notebooks are crap, cheap, but crap. My only point was that you can't excuse an iBook by calling it a budget/lowend notebook. It isn't.
For the price, the combo 12 looks pretty good to me, but Apple doesn't really have an entry level laptop, just like they don't really have an entry level desktop. FOR NOW, this is not a problem: as you concur, MOST entry level laptops aren't worth the price of admission. However, entry level desktops are VERY GOOD on the PC side -- at the price, and for what they're supposed to do: e-mail, Office, chat, light gaming. Does Apple now have a competitive entry level desktop? Nope. An eMac at iMacG3 prices would do it, but you can't get that from Apple. iMacG3 is a joke that shouldn't cost more than 2/3rds what Apple's charging. Apple's stubborn refusal to sell an appropriately priced ENTRY level machine IS the NUMBER ONE reason why market share continues to slowly shrink over the last 2 decades.
Laptops will continue to grow proportionally versus desktop sales. In as little as two years, BUDGET LAPTOPS will be GOOD ENOUGH aswell, they'll have the battery life, durability, weight, storage, and display capabilities that MOST people can use, and they won't cost a fortune. When that happens, will Apple also have a true entry level LAPTOP or will they do as they've done with desktops and hock nearly 3 year old technology for mid-range prices as a pale imitation of a true entry level effort?
As for the G3 + 16MB video. It's still a mistake to cheap out on the VRAM. Why not just sell all your new machines as optimally configured? Someone above mentioned that their PC laptop rarely sees better than 3 hours, that sounds about right for Apple's Ti/iBooks aswell, mileage may vary, but Apple is not much more realistic than any of the big PC vendors when it comes to quoted battery life.
Like I said before if these new iBooks return 5 and 6 hours respectively under OSX and in real world conditions, they will be truly impressive. Otherwise, only the Combo-12" is worth the money.
I don't think laptops will ever be a true replacement for desktop computers. Right now there is a TiBook sitting next to me, not being used, while I check the forums, etc. on my "old" 466 G4 with a 19" monitor. It is just more comfortable to use the 466: full size keyboard, screen resolution that is more comfortable (I have 20-20 vision, but I like the bigger print that isn't jagged). And while the TiBook is nearly twice as "fast", it isn't noticeable sitting here with a cable modem. Sure, the Book can hook up to keyboards, mice, and monitors but that kind of defeats the purpose. When it is time to fly, I can grab it and go, only disconnecting the power. Plus, the 466 is always on since OS X. Just hit a key to wake it up from sleep.
I would like to see a return to a true desktop form, however. Maybe something on the lines of the new XServer, that I can set my monitor on. I also want some expandability (PCI, AGP, extra drives). The processor speed binge reminds me of the 1960s - early 70s when cars were judged by the size of their engines. My dad had to have a Ford LTD with the 427, even though he seldom drove over 75mph. I had a lot of fun with that car though, lived through it, but sure didn't "need" it. There are professionals who absolutely need the fastest computer possible, and for them cost is not the biggest factor. Typical home-computer users have much less need for speed, but ease of use and cost are very important. Other than professionals, the largest group wanting those G5 Macs and 2 Gig Pentiums seem to be teenage boys. Reminds me of myself and that big old Ford.
So a P4 1.4 isn't the fastest x86 and may actually be slower than a P3 1.1Ghz for a few tasks, it weighs more than the 14" iBook has the same storage/optical spec, and a leagues better video system -- also has wireless built in, all for a 150 Canadian less than the 14" iBook. The iBook software, frankly, kicks the DELL's ass, and it looks much better, and weighs 6.9 pounds versus 7.2 to 7.9 (15" screen option). Thus, you can call the weights roughly equal (for 14") and of course the iBook is thinner at 1.3 vs 1.7"
This is not to say the dell is better or the iBook is better, just that the prices (at least for the 14's) are in line with mid to high consumer prices, and not anywhere near entry level.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
The problem is convincing the general masses that an iBook at 700mhz is on par with a Pentium4 at 1.4 Ghz.
Megahertz myth or not, people read higher mhz means faster computer.
I think people may choose an iBook for it's other qualities such as software and battery life but only if the mHz gap wasn't so great.
Yes, fiune and good. I'll accept that a G4 is twice as fast per hegahertz than a Pentium 4. But the G3 is not.
I have used a 400 Pismo and a 700 Dell something-or-other laptop. The Pismo was slightly faster at common tasks, and signifcantly faster at MP3 ripping and DVD playing.
But still not very good. Why can't I buy an Apple laptop with a DVD drive that can actually the play the things at full speed?
Comments
As for all this bitching about speed.... I don't know when the last time I looked at an x86 proc with jealousy. I use a mac. I wouldn't have it any other way. I suspect there are more and more people like me who just don't care about the proc speed. Just quit the bitching, please. Buy what suits your needs, it's not life and death.
so shut up
I had the exact same experience as you!! I was also trying to edit down a short digital moview. At that time I only had a wintel machine (very similar spec to yours), and following a particularly wasteful evening trying to scan documents and coping with TWAIN Driver in use messages, I decided to take the plunge and get a new iMac.
What a friggin' pleasure it has been!! Only a single crash in the 2 months I've had it (could be a bug in iMovie as it crashed twice when selecting the end of a moview while it was rendering some effects), and it works completlky intuitively.
My wife was worried about the change ("but we've used Windows for years....") but it took all of 2 days to convert her.
David
<strong>The new iBooks address the only problem with the my 600mhz model, the video card. And a speedbump i suppose is due, so thus we have the Radeon 700mhz
so shut up</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well say, and i will add that it is not only a 100 mhz speed bump, it's more than that i am waiting for the benchmarks, but according to the previous reports about the sahara chip and dispite the fact he did not use the 200 mhz front bus, i expect that the new i book at 700 mhz look like an i book 800 mhz.
So in the paper it's only a 100 hz speedbump, buf for the performance it's a 200 mhz one : it's a 30 % increase of the speed and like you said a much better video card section.
I'm still not convinced that this is the 750FX 'Sahara'. It may be, but the battery life is nowhere near what IBM suggested for the Sahara. (they were supposed to increase performance by up to 30% or decrease power-consumption by up to 50%.) Apple claims to have raised performance by a similar margin, but we have to account for the better GPU, and they've raised the actual clock by 100Mhz. Seeing as an 800Mhz Sahara was to consume noticeably less power than a 600Mhz 750gxe, I would suspect that 600 and 700Mhz Sahara's would lead to at least a small improvement in battery life. These models sport exactly the same battery life as the previous models 5 and 6 hrs for the 12" and 14" models respectively.
Maybe they are Sahara's, but then IBM certainly has not lived up to their hype regarding Sahara's efficiency.
Where the heck can we get a PDF or service document that says exactly what CPU they're using?
Apple says a 35% speed increase above previous iBooks - that's significant. And IBM now says Sahara is 600Mhz-1Ghz, when initially they said it started at 700Mhz. And the 512 cache of course.
I'm not sure about the battery life. You'd think it would be better. But they do have more of a graphics card in there now, and those battery lifes were always nonsense anyway. I've never seen my PowerBook's supposed 5-hour life show much beyond 2 hours.
I usually don't defend the Mhz myth, but I think some of you critics really are falling prey to it here. Would you rather have a slower 750cxe just to say you have higher Mhz? That's exactly what the Mhz myth is all about: confusing real speed with numbers.
And this isn't the GPU they're talking about. From Apple:
[quote]The new iBook runs up to 35 percent faster than previous models in CPU performance tests such as encoding a song from an audio CD into an MP3 file using iTunes?.<hr></blockquote>
I'd like to see that verified by independent tests, but if true, it's exactly what we need from a new chip - not higher but empty Mhz ratings.
<strong>
I concur. People don't seem to remember the elegance of the Apple (laptop) user experience... head and shoulders above all other (PC) offerings. Of course, there's room for improvement, but they are certainly on the right track.
Remember also that the iBooks aren't competing with the highest-end P4 PC laptops, but rather the low-cost, cheap video card, 8 lb cost-cutters. When analyzed in this context, these new offerings are VERY good. Very good.
Of course we'd all like Apple to offer an 800 mhz G4 iBook for 1199... but, frankly, it just
isn't possible. So, given the circumstances, it's a heck of an update.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Bear in mind, we've been using and doing the things the Mac way for years. Hence we believe it's the best and intuitive interface. But that's also part to repetitive use.
I've seen many PC users who are very productive on their Wintel laptops. It boils down to conditioning.
And while a 800 mhz G4 iBook for $1199 might not be possible, certainly one should be possible and available at $1799.
yes yes yes,
but I really HATE the marks the electroshocks leave from the negative reinforcement required! <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
Poor bastards....
[ 05-21-2002: Message edited by: Aslan ]</p>
I await the first independent test.
I don't thing that a 16MB Radeon is much hotter than the very old 8MB Rage.
As for the iBook being a budget laptop machine, it isn't. It's priced well within the mid to high end (consumer) space on all but the cheapest model. The 12" is a cool product 'cause you don't really get a nice form factor like that with the same features and at the same price from anyone else. But the 14" is no great deal. For 2648 Canadian I priced out a **gasp** DELL **gasp** with a 1.4Ghz P4, 30GB HDD, 14.1" XGA screen, Combo drive, and 64MB GeForce4Go, and 802.11b wireless built-in.
So a P4 1.4 isn't the fastest x86 and may actually be slower than a P3 1.1Ghz for a few tasks, it weighs more than the 14" iBook has the same storage/optical spec, and a leagues better video system -- also has wireless built in, all for a 150 Canadian less than the 14" iBook. The iBook software, frankly, kicks the DELL's ass, and it looks much better, and weighs 6.9 pounds versus 7.2 to 7.9 (15" screen option). Thus, you can call the weights roughly equal (for 14") and of course the iBook is thinner at 1.3 vs 1.7"
This is not to say the dell is better or the iBook is better, just that the prices (at least for the 14's) are in line with mid to high consumer prices, and not anywhere near entry level.
Budget laptop machines now sell in the 1000-1500 CANADIAN price range. They're CRAP (mostly) but they're cheap. Apple's cheapest notebook isn't quite crap, but it also isn't quite cheap. The combo700/12.1" looks to me like a good deal (not just for an Apple, but in general) the rest are over-priced to varying degrees.
[ 05-21-2002: Message edited by: boom_shiddang ]</p>
Last Friday, my workplace finally got me a new laptop (to be used for work at home and on the weekends). My brand new Dell Latitude C840 has a 1.6GHz CPU, a Geforce4, 256MB Ram (need to get that bumped up), a 30GB Hard drive, and a nice 1600x1200 UXGA screen. This machine is probably as fast as my desktop workstation and its features are similar to the features that PC users love to quote against Mac users in an attempt to "enlighten" them.
So what do I think of my new laptop? It is a great desktop machine, but you have serious issues if you want to unplug it. When unplugged, the screen auto dims, the CPU downclocks and you still only get 3 hours of battery life when the machine sits idle. With a single battery, this machine would probably only last for one hour of anything that was CPU intensive.
The solution of course is to drop the floppy bay and to add a second battery. So now my dell weighs in at over eight pounds and has a rather unique center of mass. Not only do I have to have two batteries, but I just paid the Dell second battery tax (they aren't free). Most people usually do not consider the cost of their second battery when shopping.
How about it's G4 crushing P4? Well, when it is plugged into a wall socket it does well, and it puts out enough heat to toast bread or to keep my coffee warm. This CPU is thermonuclear. How about when the CPU is not plugged into the wall? I doubt that it crushes the G4 as easily. What is the point of having a CPU that you can't power most of the time? I wanted a laptop so that I could go somewhere else and write code, not so that I would have to have an umbilical holding me in place.
And the Geforce4? It is a great video card, but I am not planning on playing games on this machine (sorry folks, C++ is more fun than Diablo II and you get paid too). I wish that I could take out the Nvidia card and replace it with a card better designed for portable use.
The glorious 15 inch UXGA screen? It is great when you aren't on the road. Whenever you unplug the laptop from the wall, it kindly dims itself to save battery life.
Oh and Windows XP? It is a nice OS for the colorblind. The person who chose the colors for this OS has about as much subtlety as a George Lucas Ep II love scene. I can change the theme to look like Win2k, but the OS still behaves like WinXP.
What about the cost? This machine cost just under 3k. Not a very cheap machine. Not even in the same league as an iBook, and so not even comprable to an iBook. The iBook is capable of running for a sustained period of time on one battery. The iBook costs quite a bit less. My next personal computer will probably be a TiBook and I'll let my work buy me all the boat anchors it wants.
A laptop by definition means a machine that will not routinely be seated on one's desk. I wish that most PC vendors could figure this out. My new Dell is a good desktop machine and a lukewarm laptop machine. In terms of what I need, it is overpowered in areas that I don't really need and underpowered in areas that I do need.
This explains why the characteristic of the battery life did not change a lot.
<strong>Budget laptop machines now sell in the 1000-1500 CANADIAN price range. They're CRAP (mostly) but they're cheap. Apple's cheapest notebook isn't quite crap, but it also isn't quite cheap. The combo700/12.1" looks to me like a good deal (not just for an Apple, but in general) the rest are over-priced to varying degrees.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm not sure if you have used a "budget" laptop. Your average budget laptop has no video hardware (onboard, borrowing "up to" 12 MB of system RAM for use as video RAM), has a maximum RAM capacity of 128 MB, and has a CD-ROM drive. For $699 US. Woohoo. Don't even mention the screens on those things. Plus they weigh about 8 pounds.
<a href="http://www.applelinks.com/articles/2002/05/20020520185608.shtml"; target="_blank">http://www.applelinks.com/articles/2002/05/20020520185608.shtml</a>;
you see...the chips in the new ibooks, are, in fact, sahara g3s. it seems they're officially called "sahara 750fx"
and if any of you still doubt whether or not the ibook will be capable of running os x decently (since it's altivec-optimized), read this:
<a href="http://www.applelinks.com/articles/2002/05/20020520170428.shtml"; target="_blank">http://www.applelinks.com/articles/2002/05/20020520170428.shtml</a>;
once jaguar comes out, it SEEMS no one will be complaining.
i'm certainly not. i'm selling my g4 tower and picking up a 700 mhz ibook soon, very soon. jaguar will improve all of our lives.
<strong>check this out:
<a href="http://www.applelinks.com/articles/2002/05/20020520185608.shtml"; target="_blank">http://www.applelinks.com/articles/2002/05/20020520185608.shtml</a>;
you see...the chips in the new ibooks, are, in fact, sahara g3s. it seems they're officially called "sahara 750fx"</strong><hr></blockquote>The only thing I dislike about that article is that it promotes the "IBM is better" myth with this:
[quote]It?s frustrating that Apple insists on holding back clock speeds in its last remaining G3 platform so they will not nominally exceed clock speeds of the laggardly-developing G4s in the professional machines. There would appear to be no other reason why the top iBook model could not be equipped with IBM?s 1 gigahertz 750FX chip.<hr></blockquote>That's just wrong. IBM has said that the chip will start out at 700 (now apparently clocked down to 600) and scale to 1 ghz by the end of 2002. There just is no 1Ghz Sahara yet.
Everything else sadi in this thread is correct, mostly. I agree that Apple software is superior, and that Apple battery technology is superior.
Let's say I give Apple $2500 for a maxed-out iBook.
Then I figure out how to overclock the processor and get a better video card.
I'm fine after that.
For the price, the combo 12 looks pretty good to me, but Apple doesn't really have an entry level laptop, just like they don't really have an entry level desktop. FOR NOW, this is not a problem: as you concur, MOST entry level laptops aren't worth the price of admission. However, entry level desktops are VERY GOOD on the PC side -- at the price, and for what they're supposed to do: e-mail, Office, chat, light gaming. Does Apple now have a competitive entry level desktop? Nope. An eMac at iMacG3 prices would do it, but you can't get that from Apple. iMacG3 is a joke that shouldn't cost more than 2/3rds what Apple's charging. Apple's stubborn refusal to sell an appropriately priced ENTRY level machine IS the NUMBER ONE reason why market share continues to slowly shrink over the last 2 decades.
Laptops will continue to grow proportionally versus desktop sales. In as little as two years, BUDGET LAPTOPS will be GOOD ENOUGH aswell, they'll have the battery life, durability, weight, storage, and display capabilities that MOST people can use, and they won't cost a fortune. When that happens, will Apple also have a true entry level LAPTOP or will they do as they've done with desktops and hock nearly 3 year old technology for mid-range prices as a pale imitation of a true entry level effort?
As for the G3 + 16MB video. It's still a mistake to cheap out on the VRAM. Why not just sell all your new machines as optimally configured? Someone above mentioned that their PC laptop rarely sees better than 3 hours, that sounds about right for Apple's Ti/iBooks aswell, mileage may vary, but Apple is not much more realistic than any of the big PC vendors when it comes to quoted battery life.
Like I said before if these new iBooks return 5 and 6 hours respectively under OSX and in real world conditions, they will be truly impressive. Otherwise, only the Combo-12" is worth the money.
I would like to see a return to a true desktop form, however. Maybe something on the lines of the new XServer, that I can set my monitor on. I also want some expandability (PCI, AGP, extra drives). The processor speed binge reminds me of the 1960s - early 70s when cars were judged by the size of their engines. My dad had to have a Ford LTD with the 427, even though he seldom drove over 75mph. I had a lot of fun with that car though, lived through it, but sure didn't "need" it. There are professionals who absolutely need the fastest computer possible, and for them cost is not the biggest factor. Typical home-computer users have much less need for speed, but ease of use and cost are very important. Other than professionals, the largest group wanting those G5 Macs and 2 Gig Pentiums seem to be teenage boys. Reminds me of myself and that big old Ford.
<strong>
So a P4 1.4 isn't the fastest x86 and may actually be slower than a P3 1.1Ghz for a few tasks, it weighs more than the 14" iBook has the same storage/optical spec, and a leagues better video system -- also has wireless built in, all for a 150 Canadian less than the 14" iBook. The iBook software, frankly, kicks the DELL's ass, and it looks much better, and weighs 6.9 pounds versus 7.2 to 7.9 (15" screen option). Thus, you can call the weights roughly equal (for 14") and of course the iBook is thinner at 1.3 vs 1.7"
This is not to say the dell is better or the iBook is better, just that the prices (at least for the 14's) are in line with mid to high consumer prices, and not anywhere near entry level.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
The problem is convincing the general masses that an iBook at 700mhz is on par with a Pentium4 at 1.4 Ghz.
Megahertz myth or not, people read higher mhz means faster computer.
I think people may choose an iBook for it's other qualities such as software and battery life but only if the mHz gap wasn't so great.
I have used a 400 Pismo and a 700 Dell something-or-other laptop. The Pismo was slightly faster at common tasks, and signifcantly faster at MP3 ripping and DVD playing.
But still not very good. Why can't I buy an Apple laptop with a DVD drive that can actually the play the things at full speed?