I really didn't think it was that hard to find reasons. Notes, dictations, evesdropping, blackmail and so on. People are often less reserved when they don't think they are being recorded, they might say things they would later regret if something were recorded. In "secure" situations, discussions of secrets might take place that some people want to hear, and others don't want to leak. I can think of two pretty major political scandals have come about because of information recorded onto some sort of audio device or were supported by such evidence.
Heh, I'm not sure a laptop would be a good covert recording device. Besides, there is likely something happening to let you know you are recording.
Notes and dictations just needs voice. I doubt if you could get away with an open laptop pointed at your subject, or even be allowed to turn it on.
And by the same token, a laptop is not a good covert photographic device.
Kind of clumsy too. I can see someone holding an open 17" laptop, and twisting around to point the camera and mic everytime the subject moves. Eventually the person would screw themselves into the floor.
Do you think OS X and the switch to Intel processors would lure AutoDesk to port their application ?
No. I am hopeful that VPC will allow me to run AutoCad at decent speeds while in OS X. If that is the case, then all is well. It is my only hope for eliminating a PC at my work. Switching between my mini and gateway sucks. Especially since my mini uses the VGA port and makes for a dim screen.
Can't wait for the 15" X86 PowerBook, (hopefully its as good as they say ), and the camera... ...I think I can find something to do with it, (as long as they don't screw too much with the design.
I just wish they would put in a SD slot or something of the sort
No. I am hopeful that VPC will allow me to run AutoCad at decent speeds while in OS X. If that is the case, then all is well. It is my only hope for eliminating a PC at my work. Switching between my mini and gateway sucks. Especially since my mini uses the VGA port and makes for a dim screen.
No. I am hopeful that VPC will allow me to run AutoCad at decent speeds while in OS X.
No way José! I don't think even a Virtual PC for x86 OS X will be any bargain.
Quote:
Originally posted by zpisnon
I just wish they would put in a SD slot or something of the sort
A multi-card reader would be a big time bonus. Especially for all to photogs out there. Throw in a PowerBook + Aperature package deal, and it would be a boon to the professional photographer.
If Apple is to use a dual-core Yonah in the first Intel PowerBook, how would the speed compare to the G5...let's say the low-end dual-core 2GHz Power Mac G5?
If Apple is to use a dual-core Yonah in the first Intel PowerBook, how would the speed compare to the G5...let's say the low-end dual-core 2GHz Power Mac G5?
If it was a dual core 2Ghz Yonah I'd say it'd be at least %33 faster than a single G5.
However if we're talking about a low end 2Ghz DC G5 the yonah wouldn't be faster. The G5 has more execution units and a better FPU. I think we'll have to wait for Merom before we see something from Intel on par with the G5 clock for clock.
I keep saying the same thing, but engineering logic seems to have nothing to do with these rumors.
They predicted the cameras for the models that just came out as well.
They aren't really talking to anyone about these things. They're just guessing. Since they aren't engineers themselves, they don't understand the problems involved.
Two words: Folded optics. High quality cameras nowadays can be incredibly small for their quality. Look at the Minolta Dimage X1. 8 megapixels with a 3x optical zoom lens in a body 0.8 inches thick with no protruding lens. You don't think Apple can go smaller with a lower, webcam-resolution pickup and a fixed focal length lens? Especially since Sony has had swiveling cams on their subnotebooks for years now.
Anybody who thinks a webcam-equipped PB could be used for boardroom espionage has been watching too much James Bond. Without a zoom lens, you're not going to get a good picture of the whiteboard from across the conference table. And then there's the relatively low resolution of a webcam, which won't allow much detail to be captured.
I still think Apple should replace the 12" PB with a 10" widescreen rather than a 13". The 10" would differentiate it from a 13" iBook (which they should consolidate the 12 and 14" iBooks to in order to simplify that line) and open up a new market niche to Apple, namely the road warriors who want the smallest, lightest laptops they can get. Give us a VGA/DVI out and we can still plug in big LCDs and projectors for extended use.
Two words: Folded optics. High quality cameras nowadays can be incredibly small for their quality. Look at the Minolta Dimage X1. 8 megapixels with a 3x optical zoom lens in a body 0.8 inches thick with no protruding lens. You don't think Apple can go smaller with a lower, webcam-resolution pickup and a fixed focal length lens? Especially since Sony has had swiveling cams on their subnotebooks for years now.
Anybody who thinks a webcam-equipped PB could be used for boardroom espionage has been watching too much James Bond. Without a zoom lens, you're not going to get a good picture of the whiteboard from across the conference table. And then there's the relatively low resolution of a webcam, which won't allow much detail to be captured.
I still think Apple should replace the 12" PB with a 10" widescreen rather than a 13". The 10" would differentiate it from a 13" iBook (which they should consolidate the 12 and 14" iBooks to in order to simplify that line) and open up a new market niche to Apple, namely the road warriors who want the smallest, lightest laptops they can get. Give us a VGA/DVI out and we can still plug in big LCDs and projectors for extended use.
Apple is going for a .25" thick panel. That panel has ro have a thickness to the metal or plastic. A hole in the front for the camera lens, fine. But the back has to have some thickness. How much does this leave? Less than .2"?
I'm sure that something can be done. But Apple is concerned with quality of the image. I don't think that they would do something that would give a poor image. The top of the Sony hmurchison led us to was a good .375" thick. I don't think the image will be very good on that. They didn't show an example of the quality on the site, so it might not be much.
I don't think that Apple would be happy with that. There are liquid lens's designed for cellphones, though I don't know if one has actually been in service yet. They adjust focus by applying a voltage across the liquid cell, which deformes the shape, in the fashion of our eye. But while that would fit, the quality isn't up to the 640 x480 standards Apple would need.
Folded optics still need room, and are expensive. Optical grade fiber is also expensive.
I'm sure they could do it if they really wanted to, but it might add too much to the price if Apple really wants to thin down the enclosures. Too much to the bulk if they don't.
It seems to me that the 15" and 17" MUST be introduced at the same time for the same reasons. Who is going to buy a now much slower and obsolete 17", when the new 15" is out. Ouch!
At first I thought the same thing. But on second thought I no longer think so.
I agree that the iBook cannot move to Intel first, not unless they reduce the CPU speed so the iBook ends up slower than the PPC PowerBook. And that will likely not happen. Why move the iBook to Intel if it ends up as slow as the current iBook model?
Apple will have to move the PowerBook and the iBook line at the same time.
But it was agreed that moving the PowerBooks, the 'pro' line, to Intel first is a rather risky business. What if the design has major unknown bugs? What if OSX/Intel has some? And add those to the rather infamous bugs found in the first model of any new PowerBook generation. Not good.
A good way out of this dilemma is to split the 'pro' line. Move the 15" PowerBook to Intel first. This might seem to eat into 17" sales, but I feel those customers are probably unwilling to be the guinea pigs on the plunge to Intel anyway. Sure they'd want the speed and dual core CPUs, but if your business depends on this machine, would you risk buying a potentially buggy solution, perhaps not really working as advertised?
Therefore pro customers will likely much rather adopt a wait-and-see approach. And they'd also much rather see their applications compiled natively for Intel before they move. I assume they will wait with their PowerBook purchase until the next program update cycle anyway.
In that light it makes sense that Apple offers only the 15" model with Intel first, allowing conservative 'pro' customers to still be able to buy a 17" PPC PowerBook.
And as the 17" allows for better cooling perhaps Apple can even eek out a small performance boost on the PPC chip one last time for the 17" model at the same time they introduce the 15" Intel model.
Other than that I can see Apple offering current PPC PowerBook models alongside the new Intel models for some time. Like they did with the OS9 bootable PowerMacs.
But offering 15" and 17" models in Intel and PPC versions seems a bit much. Therefore it is likely only one of them or they split the 15" or 17" models as mentioned above.
I sorry melgross, I meant when the MacIntels show up with the all new VPC everyone is hoping for. I hope it is decently fast then and usable.
I actually run AutoCad '05 on my iBook (1.2 GHz) when I am in a pinch out of town. It is for emergencies when I travel. It is not something I would want to do for more than an hour but is good enough to get out a drawing if I have too.
Comments
Originally posted by sc_markt
A dual-core Powerbook that can run OS X and windows at full speed would
be a dream machine. I only hope that if I use it to surf the web in windows, it doesn't somehow get a virus (or spyware) into the MAC OS part of it.
After using OSX, why would anyone wants to do anything in Windows? I sincerely hope that you are NOT running IE...
And if you need the IE rendering engine, you can use Netscape under OSX.
Personally, I don't see why I want to do anything under Windows anymore. Perhaps for games.
Originally posted by JeffDM
I really didn't think it was that hard to find reasons. Notes, dictations, evesdropping, blackmail and so on. People are often less reserved when they don't think they are being recorded, they might say things they would later regret if something were recorded. In "secure" situations, discussions of secrets might take place that some people want to hear, and others don't want to leak. I can think of two pretty major political scandals have come about because of information recorded onto some sort of audio device or were supported by such evidence.
Heh, I'm not sure a laptop would be a good covert recording device. Besides, there is likely something happening to let you know you are recording.
Notes and dictations just needs voice. I doubt if you could get away with an open laptop pointed at your subject, or even be allowed to turn it on.
Originally posted by melgross
Heh, I'm not sure a laptop would be a good covert recording device. Besides, there is likely something happening to let you know you are recording.
Notes and dictations just needs voice. I doubt if you could get away with an open laptop pointed at your subject, or even be allowed to turn it on.
And by the same token, a laptop is not a good covert photographic device.
Originally posted by noirdesir
And by the same token, a laptop is not a good covert photographic device.
Kind of clumsy too. I can see someone holding an open 17" laptop, and twisting around to point the camera and mic everytime the subject moves. Eventually the person would screw themselves into the floor.
Originally posted by kmok1
After using OSX, why would anyone wants to do anything in Windows?
AutoCad
AutoDesk
AutoCad
Some of us are bound by a Windows world in some form or fashion. AutoCad is mine (not because of me but my customer base).
Originally posted by aplnub
AutoCad
AutoDesk
AutoCad
Some of us are bound by a Windows world in some form or fashion. AutoCad is mine (not because of me but my customer base).
Do you think OS X and the switch to Intel processors would lure AutoDesk to port their application ?
No need for BTO options, having two models of each makes more sense to me.
-DG
Originally posted by DHagan4755
Do you think OS X and the switch to Intel processors would lure AutoDesk to port their application ?
There have been surveys done in conjunction with AutoDesk about whether there were enough architects who would buy it.
Go here:
http://www.architosh.com/
Originally posted by DHagan4755
Do you think OS X and the switch to Intel processors would lure AutoDesk to port their application ?
No. I am hopeful that VPC will allow me to run AutoCad at decent speeds while in OS X. If that is the case, then all is well. It is my only hope for eliminating a PC at my work. Switching between my mini and gateway sucks. Especially since my mini uses the VGA port and makes for a dim screen.
I just wish they would put in a SD slot or something of the sort
Originally posted by aplnub
No. I am hopeful that VPC will allow me to run AutoCad at decent speeds while in OS X. If that is the case, then all is well. It is my only hope for eliminating a PC at my work. Switching between my mini and gateway sucks. Especially since my mini uses the VGA port and makes for a dim screen.
Don't even think about it. I've tried it.
Originally posted by aplnub
No. I am hopeful that VPC will allow me to run AutoCad at decent speeds while in OS X.
No way José! I don't think even a Virtual PC for x86 OS X will be any bargain.
Originally posted by zpisnon
I just wish they would put in a SD slot or something of the sort
A multi-card reader would be a big time bonus. Especially for all to photogs out there. Throw in a PowerBook + Aperature package deal, and it would be a boon to the professional photographer.
If Apple is to use a dual-core Yonah in the first Intel PowerBook, how would the speed compare to the G5...let's say the low-end dual-core 2GHz Power Mac G5?
Originally posted by DHagan4755
I was wondering...
If Apple is to use a dual-core Yonah in the first Intel PowerBook, how would the speed compare to the G5...let's say the low-end dual-core 2GHz Power Mac G5?
If it was a dual core 2Ghz Yonah I'd say it'd be at least %33 faster than a single G5.
However if we're talking about a low end 2Ghz DC G5 the yonah wouldn't be faster. The G5 has more execution units and a better FPU. I think we'll have to wait for Merom before we see something from Intel on par with the G5 clock for clock.
Originally posted by melgross
I keep saying the same thing, but engineering logic seems to have nothing to do with these rumors.
They predicted the cameras for the models that just came out as well.
They aren't really talking to anyone about these things. They're just guessing. Since they aren't engineers themselves, they don't understand the problems involved.
Two words: Folded optics. High quality cameras nowadays can be incredibly small for their quality. Look at the Minolta Dimage X1. 8 megapixels with a 3x optical zoom lens in a body 0.8 inches thick with no protruding lens. You don't think Apple can go smaller with a lower, webcam-resolution pickup and a fixed focal length lens? Especially since Sony has had swiveling cams on their subnotebooks for years now.
Anybody who thinks a webcam-equipped PB could be used for boardroom espionage has been watching too much James Bond. Without a zoom lens, you're not going to get a good picture of the whiteboard from across the conference table. And then there's the relatively low resolution of a webcam, which won't allow much detail to be captured.
I still think Apple should replace the 12" PB with a 10" widescreen rather than a 13". The 10" would differentiate it from a 13" iBook (which they should consolidate the 12 and 14" iBooks to in order to simplify that line) and open up a new market niche to Apple, namely the road warriors who want the smallest, lightest laptops they can get. Give us a VGA/DVI out and we can still plug in big LCDs and projectors for extended use.
Originally posted by Kolchak
Two words: Folded optics. High quality cameras nowadays can be incredibly small for their quality. Look at the Minolta Dimage X1. 8 megapixels with a 3x optical zoom lens in a body 0.8 inches thick with no protruding lens. You don't think Apple can go smaller with a lower, webcam-resolution pickup and a fixed focal length lens? Especially since Sony has had swiveling cams on their subnotebooks for years now.
Anybody who thinks a webcam-equipped PB could be used for boardroom espionage has been watching too much James Bond. Without a zoom lens, you're not going to get a good picture of the whiteboard from across the conference table. And then there's the relatively low resolution of a webcam, which won't allow much detail to be captured.
I still think Apple should replace the 12" PB with a 10" widescreen rather than a 13". The 10" would differentiate it from a 13" iBook (which they should consolidate the 12 and 14" iBooks to in order to simplify that line) and open up a new market niche to Apple, namely the road warriors who want the smallest, lightest laptops they can get. Give us a VGA/DVI out and we can still plug in big LCDs and projectors for extended use.
Apple is going for a .25" thick panel. That panel has ro have a thickness to the metal or plastic. A hole in the front for the camera lens, fine. But the back has to have some thickness. How much does this leave? Less than .2"?
I'm sure that something can be done. But Apple is concerned with quality of the image. I don't think that they would do something that would give a poor image. The top of the Sony hmurchison led us to was a good .375" thick. I don't think the image will be very good on that. They didn't show an example of the quality on the site, so it might not be much.
I don't think that Apple would be happy with that. There are liquid lens's designed for cellphones, though I don't know if one has actually been in service yet. They adjust focus by applying a voltage across the liquid cell, which deformes the shape, in the fashion of our eye. But while that would fit, the quality isn't up to the 640 x480 standards Apple would need.
Folded optics still need room, and are expensive. Optical grade fiber is also expensive.
I'm sure they could do it if they really wanted to, but it might add too much to the price if Apple really wants to thin down the enclosures. Too much to the bulk if they don't.
Originally posted by noirdesir
Did you ever use the PC-Card slot in your Powerbook?
And was it really so unbearable to have something build into your Powerbook that you have never used but nevertheless payed for?
I use the pc card slot often.
Originally posted by melgross
It seems to me that the 15" and 17" MUST be introduced at the same time for the same reasons. Who is going to buy a now much slower and obsolete 17", when the new 15" is out. Ouch!
At first I thought the same thing. But on second thought I no longer think so.
I agree that the iBook cannot move to Intel first, not unless they reduce the CPU speed so the iBook ends up slower than the PPC PowerBook. And that will likely not happen. Why move the iBook to Intel if it ends up as slow as the current iBook model?
Apple will have to move the PowerBook and the iBook line at the same time.
But it was agreed that moving the PowerBooks, the 'pro' line, to Intel first is a rather risky business. What if the design has major unknown bugs? What if OSX/Intel has some? And add those to the rather infamous bugs found in the first model of any new PowerBook generation. Not good.
A good way out of this dilemma is to split the 'pro' line. Move the 15" PowerBook to Intel first. This might seem to eat into 17" sales, but I feel those customers are probably unwilling to be the guinea pigs on the plunge to Intel anyway. Sure they'd want the speed and dual core CPUs, but if your business depends on this machine, would you risk buying a potentially buggy solution, perhaps not really working as advertised?
Therefore pro customers will likely much rather adopt a wait-and-see approach. And they'd also much rather see their applications compiled natively for Intel before they move. I assume they will wait with their PowerBook purchase until the next program update cycle anyway.
In that light it makes sense that Apple offers only the 15" model with Intel first, allowing conservative 'pro' customers to still be able to buy a 17" PPC PowerBook.
And as the 17" allows for better cooling perhaps Apple can even eek out a small performance boost on the PPC chip one last time for the 17" model at the same time they introduce the 15" Intel model.
Other than that I can see Apple offering current PPC PowerBook models alongside the new Intel models for some time. Like they did with the OS9 bootable PowerMacs.
But offering 15" and 17" models in Intel and PPC versions seems a bit much. Therefore it is likely only one of them or they split the 15" or 17" models as mentioned above.
[edit to clear up the meaning of some sentences]
Originally posted by melgross
Don't even think about it. I've tried it.
I sorry melgross, I meant when the MacIntels show up with the all new VPC everyone is hoping for. I hope it is decently fast then and usable.
I actually run AutoCad '05 on my iBook (1.2 GHz) when I am in a pinch out of town. It is for emergencies when I travel. It is not something I would want to do for more than an hour but is good enough to get out a drawing if I have too.