Wow I had not known that Loop Rumors had a resurrection.
I was thinking that ACD in 2006 would likely have the iSight as well. It really is going to be a standard feature in a few years. It's the only way to ensure video conferencing takes off.
Wow, I had no idea either. I haven't been there in forever.
Well, lets assume they use the Yonah Pentium-M processor at maximum speed of 2.16 Ghz for the new powerbooks:
The Pentium-M is roughly equivalent to the G5 in speed, Ghz for Ghz. Maybe a little bit slower (check out: http://www.systemshootouts.org/processors.html). With the new optimizations Intel are sure to have built into the Yonah, it will probably close that gap a bit more.
My prediction/speculation: The new Powerbooks will be just a little bit slower than the Power Mac G5 Dual 2 Ghz. The Power Mac will have a faster front-side bus, slightly faster processor and hard-drive. The Powerbooks will however slightly outperform the current top-of-the-line iMac, especially in multi-tasking benchmarks, where the Yonah can flex it's dual-core advantage.
It's not that simple. Compare it to a 7457. Even then it's not that easy.
A lot of these "creative managers" as you call them, get iMacs for their desks.
Whoa. WAY to much ego in the creative corner offices for mere iMacs. Other posts in this thread have been about ad agencies. If we're talking about the head creatives at major ad firms, iMacs ain't gonna cut it.
But let's forget such a narrow customer scope. Let's just look at PM's in general. For years now, it's become conventional wisdom that PB's have seriously eaten in the PM sales. No?
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
2. Stagnation is one reason that sales have gone down.
BINGO!
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross: While Apple doesn't release separate figures for all of their machines, it's known that they sold a bit more than 600 thousand desktops last quarter.
Previously, you said: PM sales used to be 500,00 a quarter. The estimate is that now it's closer to 125,000 a quarter.
Huh? Do "desktops" = "PM's"? Apparently not. Clarity is needed here in order to digest these numbers.
My point is: there are a number of things that contribute to lowered sales of PM's. I just want the larger view to be recognized.
Whoa. WAY to much ego in the creative corner offices for mere iMacs. Other posts in this thread have been about ad agencies. If we're talking about the head creatives at major ad firms, iMacs ain't gonna cut it.
But let's forget such a narrow customer scope. Let's just look at PM's in general. For years now, it's become conventional wisdom that PB's have seriously eaten in the PM sales. No?
BINGO!
Previously, you said: PM sales used to be 500,00 a quarter. The estimate is that now it's closer to 125,000 a quarter.
Huh? Do "desktops" = "PM's"? Apparently not. Clarity is needed here in order to digest these numbers.
My point is: there are a number of things that contribute to lowered sales of PM's. I just want the larger view to be recognized.
gc
Creative managers are not all head honchos. Don't think that they look down upon the iMac's either. The new flat iMacs have been very popular for the same reasons that LCD monitors have been. Many people in AD agencies consider them to be a statement on how forward looking they are, as well as saving space.
Apple's PM's used to be a much larger percentage of desktop sales then they are now. Just a short time ago, portable sales were also a much smaller percentage of total sales. A few years ago laptops were less than 20% of sales. That 80% remaining was more evenly divided between PM's and consumer machines. Actually biased toward the pro line. Apple used to sell as many as 2 million PM's a year.
Remember that PM's went for as little as $1,500 at one time, at the low end.
Someone put quite some thought into this. Interesting concept to say the least!
FAKE! Doesn't pass the structural smell test, the two support arms to the flat panel must, of course, have a connecting rod between them at the lower hinge point. This is a requirement, otherwise the screen doesn't even rotate as one unit. So maybe you make the display armature out of let's say T6 Titanium (you could of course use T19 (or any higher strength grade titanium, but your costs go up significantly)), that might work, for the armiture, then the weak point is the pins into the display frame and/or the frame material itself (in the vacinity of the hinge). Even given this requirement, the display and the multiple hinges throughout, on something that size, wouldn't make a very durable lappy. If it's hit or dropped in any kind of open state, game over. I certinly wouldn't place this anywhere near children.
In addition, the display electronics must run through the armature? The armature doesn't even go to the center of gravity of the display (the preferred balance point). All hinges would have to lock for several of those photos. And finally, where do you put the guts of the lappy (CPU, HD, DVD, etcetera), or is this some kind of goofy thin client?
No they don't get much more FAKE than this one, someone wasted their time (and that website for that matter).
PS - The armature IS interesting (to me), as I'm in the preliminary stages of just such a design, except it's motorized, must lift 10,000 lbs, has 10 ft arms and a 20 ft (hollow) axle.
Someone put quite some thought into this. Interesting concept to say the least!
I think it's too late in the game to hope for a Powerbook G5, IBM's mobile chip is too little, too late. That mockup is a nifty design, though too complex from a durability and cost standpoint.
The whole reason for using Intel chips is to make smaller laptops...
The whole reason for using Intel chips is because Apple felt that they offered a far better cycles/power ratio that do IBM's PPC procs, based on Apple's viewing the respective road maps.
The whole reason for using Intel chips is because Apple felt that they offered a far better cycles/power ratio that do IBM's PPC procs, based on Apple's viewing the respective road maps.
This must be only part of the truth. The numbers quoted by S. Jobs seem a little exaggerated today, perhaps not tomorrow. We will see. But I think there are other things too in the deal.
The whole reason for using Intel chips is because Apple felt that they offered a far better cycles/power ratio that do IBM's PPC procs, based on Apple's viewing the respective road maps.
Making smaller laptops had nothing to do with it.
Not cycles/power... performance/power. Clock rate is not likely to be the discriminating factor. I also don't expect to see all that much of a difference until we move beyond 65nm.
Comments
Originally posted by hmurchison
Wow I had not known that Loop Rumors had a resurrection.
I was thinking that ACD in 2006 would likely have the iSight as well. It really is going to be a standard feature in a few years. It's the only way to ensure video conferencing takes off.
Wow, I had no idea either. I haven't been there in forever.
Does anyone know when they started back up?
Originally posted by DHagan4755
What are the real chances for an Intel PowerBook in the January time frame?
Pretty low.
Originally posted by jms698
Well, lets assume they use the Yonah Pentium-M processor at maximum speed of 2.16 Ghz for the new powerbooks:
The Pentium-M is roughly equivalent to the G5 in speed, Ghz for Ghz. Maybe a little bit slower (check out: http://www.systemshootouts.org/processors.html). With the new optimizations Intel are sure to have built into the Yonah, it will probably close that gap a bit more.
My prediction/speculation: The new Powerbooks will be just a little bit slower than the Power Mac G5 Dual 2 Ghz. The Power Mac will have a faster front-side bus, slightly faster processor and hard-drive. The Powerbooks will however slightly outperform the current top-of-the-line iMac, especially in multi-tasking benchmarks, where the Yonah can flex it's dual-core advantage.
It's not that simple. Compare it to a 7457. Even then it's not that easy.
The "M" goes up to 2.33GHz.
Originally posted by Flounder
Wow, I had no idea either. I haven't been there in forever.
Does anyone know when they started back up?
I don't know, but I haven't found it to be all that impressive.
Very simplistic analysis, and a lot of pure guessing.
Originally posted by melgross
A lot of these "creative managers" as you call them, get iMacs for their desks.
Whoa. WAY to much ego in the creative corner offices for mere iMacs. Other posts in this thread have been about ad agencies. If we're talking about the head creatives at major ad firms, iMacs ain't gonna cut it.
But let's forget such a narrow customer scope. Let's just look at PM's in general. For years now, it's become conventional wisdom that PB's have seriously eaten in the PM sales. No?
Originally posted by melgross
2. Stagnation is one reason that sales have gone down.
BINGO!
Originally posted by melgross: While Apple doesn't release separate figures for all of their machines, it's known that they sold a bit more than 600 thousand desktops last quarter.
Previously, you said: PM sales used to be 500,00 a quarter. The estimate is that now it's closer to 125,000 a quarter.
Huh? Do "desktops" = "PM's"? Apparently not. Clarity is needed here in order to digest these numbers.
My point is: there are a number of things that contribute to lowered sales of PM's. I just want the larger view to be recognized.
gc
Originally posted by GordonComstock
Whoa. WAY to much ego in the creative corner offices for mere iMacs. Other posts in this thread have been about ad agencies. If we're talking about the head creatives at major ad firms, iMacs ain't gonna cut it.
But let's forget such a narrow customer scope. Let's just look at PM's in general. For years now, it's become conventional wisdom that PB's have seriously eaten in the PM sales. No?
BINGO!
Previously, you said: PM sales used to be 500,00 a quarter. The estimate is that now it's closer to 125,000 a quarter.
Huh? Do "desktops" = "PM's"? Apparently not. Clarity is needed here in order to digest these numbers.
My point is: there are a number of things that contribute to lowered sales of PM's. I just want the larger view to be recognized.
gc
Creative managers are not all head honchos. Don't think that they look down upon the iMac's either. The new flat iMacs have been very popular for the same reasons that LCD monitors have been. Many people in AD agencies consider them to be a statement on how forward looking they are, as well as saving space.
Apple's PM's used to be a much larger percentage of desktop sales then they are now. Just a short time ago, portable sales were also a much smaller percentage of total sales. A few years ago laptops were less than 20% of sales. That 80% remaining was more evenly divided between PM's and consumer machines. Actually biased toward the pro line. Apple used to sell as many as 2 million PM's a year.
Remember that PM's went for as little as $1,500 at one time, at the low end.
http://www.yumlum.com/articles/99/1/
Someone put quite some thought into this. Interesting concept to say the least!
Originally posted by dutch pear
I came across a very interesting mockup. It's a mockup for the P'book G5, but could of course also become the Pintelbook!
http://www.yumlum.com/articles/99/1/
Someone put quite some thought into this. Interesting concept to say the least!
FAKE! Doesn't pass the structural smell test, the two support arms to the flat panel must, of course, have a connecting rod between them at the lower hinge point. This is a requirement, otherwise the screen doesn't even rotate as one unit. So maybe you make the display armature out of let's say T6 Titanium (you could of course use T19 (or any higher strength grade titanium, but your costs go up significantly)), that might work, for the armiture, then the weak point is the pins into the display frame and/or the frame material itself (in the vacinity of the hinge). Even given this requirement, the display and the multiple hinges throughout, on something that size, wouldn't make a very durable lappy. If it's hit or dropped in any kind of open state, game over. I certinly wouldn't place this anywhere near children.
In addition, the display electronics must run through the armature? The armature doesn't even go to the center of gravity of the display (the preferred balance point). All hinges would have to lock for several of those photos. And finally, where do you put the guts of the lappy (CPU, HD, DVD, etcetera), or is this some kind of goofy thin client?
No they don't get much more FAKE than this one, someone wasted their time (and that website for that matter).
PS - The armature IS interesting (to me), as I'm in the preliminary stages of just such a design, except it's motorized, must lift 10,000 lbs, has 10 ft arms and a 20 ft (hollow) axle.
Originally posted by dutch pear
I came across a very interesting mockup. It's a mockup for the P'book G5, but could of course also become the Pintelbook!
http://www.yumlum.com/articles/99/1/
Someone put quite some thought into this. Interesting concept to say the least!
I think it's too late in the game to hope for a Powerbook G5, IBM's mobile chip is too little, too late. That mockup is a nifty design, though too complex from a durability and cost standpoint.
Originally posted by dutch pear
Okay, okay, fake it is. Cool fake though
And old one. I remember have seen it again quite some time back, perhaps past year. Anyway, I can hardly see such a desing make some sense.
Originally posted by umijin
NO 12"???! This is ludicrous.
The whole reason for using Intel chips is to make smaller laptops...
The whole reason for using Intel chips is because Apple felt that they offered a far better cycles/power ratio that do IBM's PPC procs, based on Apple's viewing the respective road maps.
Making smaller laptops had nothing to do with it.
Originally posted by Robin Hood
Why not a 30" notebook? Might as well go all out. Sure it would be heavy to lug around, but it will be the biggest notebook ever!
Comes with wheels and a pull-handle that folds into the screen behind the Video CamCorder!:
Originally posted by Cubit
Comes with wheels and a pull-handle that folds into the screen behind the Video CamCorder!:
Yeah, but just try putting it under your airline seat.
Originally posted by jouster
The whole reason for using Intel chips is because Apple felt that they offered a far better cycles/power ratio that do IBM's PPC procs, based on Apple's viewing the respective road maps.
This must be only part of the truth. The numbers quoted by S. Jobs seem a little exaggerated today, perhaps not tomorrow. We will see. But I think there are other things too in the deal.
Originally posted by jouster
The whole reason for using Intel chips is because Apple felt that they offered a far better cycles/power ratio that do IBM's PPC procs, based on Apple's viewing the respective road maps.
Making smaller laptops had nothing to do with it.
Not cycles/power... performance/power. Clock rate is not likely to be the discriminating factor. I also don't expect to see all that much of a difference until we move beyond 65nm.
Originally posted by melgross
Yeah, but just try putting it under your airline seat.
This Guy gets his own airline seat! He suely earns it!