New PBs- what do they mean for iBook

2

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 52
    serranoserrano Posts: 1,806member
    the ibook will go g4 and radeon, not even the emac is on a g3 ... apple doesn't plan on selling many more g3's, not even to education
  • Reply 22 of 52
    emaneman Posts: 7,204member
    [quote]Originally posted by janitor:

    <strong>the ibook will go g4 and radeon, not even the emac is on a g3 ... apple doesn't plan on selling many more g3's, not even to education</strong><hr></blockquote>



    So they'd rather sell slower G4s in the iBooks? Until the PB reaches at least 1GHz I really don't think the iBook will get a G4.
  • Reply 23 of 52
    [quote]Originally posted by EmAn:

    <strong>



    So they'd rather sell slower G4s in the iBooks? Until the PB reaches at least 1GHz I really don't think the iBook will get a G4.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    The Mhz rating of the chip used in the iBook probably won't exceed those used in the powerbook whether G3 or G4. Why wouldn't they switch to 600 and 700Mhz G4s in the iBook relatively soon? These fabled 1GHz G3s don't actually exist yet AFAIK, and everything other product is G4.



    I'm not saying this has to happen, but I don't seen any reason that it couldn't happen.
  • Reply 24 of 52
    neutrino23neutrino23 Posts: 1,558member
    [quote]Originally posted by Eugene:

    <strong>1 watt at 1 GHz? LOL. Not even a 400 MHz 750CXe uses only 1 watt.



    I think Matsu has the right spec, but I would not be too surprised if Apple stuck with the 750CXe for one more round.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    That is a bit of an exaggeration but the point is that in the iBook form factory I think that longer battery life and less heat output are more important than the performance boost provided by a G4. Once G4s are available with low enough power consumption they will migrate to the iBook.
  • Reply 25 of 52
    [quote]Originally posted by Aquatik:

    <strong>F*ck the G4 iBook. I'd rather have an 800mhz IBM G3 (and remember, they are putting in some cool tech like SIMD) Is it general consensus here that AltiVec in G4s makes OS X faster? I played with a PBG4 and a 600mhz iBook, no difference in OS X, really. Though I only had a minute. Seriously, think about it. A consumer laptop. I know, the iMac got one. But, the iBook is cheap, I see it getting even better price/performance at MWNY. Who buys an iBook to render Photoshop on? That would be stupid. Especially considering the new PBG4. The only things that MUST be corrected on the iBook: the VRAM (8mb, are you kidding?)

    the BUS: 66mhz is absolutely crippleware. I can't believe Apple is still doing this. Just upclock the 500 iBook to a 100mhz bus. The fab has to be good enough for this now.



    Oh yeah, and where's that handle? Somehow, I believe Apple could make a handle fit onto the new screen. I'm inclined to think they could build it into the hinge for the screen. It is too hard to explain in words, and I don't have Photoshop, though! Suffice to say, it would be a weird looking 90 degree handle that sort of connected to the back of the screen, but it would get the job done.</strong><hr></blockquote>





    OS X runs faster on a G4, that's a fact. And now that almost all Macs use G4s, we are going to see more and more apps optimized for Altivec, since it's now in a developer's interest to do so. "Accelerated for Altivec" stamped on a software box will now mean something to all new Mac owners, not just Powermac owners.



    I predict that the iBook gets a G4 in it's next revision, running at 600-700 MHz, 100 MHz system bus, and a new video chipset, probably the ATI Radeon mobility with 16 MB vRAM.



    I don't expect much change on the LCD displays, although I would really like to see the resolution bumped up on the 14" iBook, I'd say chances are about 60% on that. The resolution on the 12" iBook is fine, and Apple should keep at least one 12" model for those who value portability above all else in a laptop.



    When one considers that the iBook is at the end of it's revision cycle, it's not a bad laptop at all. I think some are a bit hard on it...what really sucks in Apple's lineup are the Powermacs..those are pathetic!
  • Reply 26 of 52
    majukimajuki Posts: 114member
    Apple needs to step up to speed and get a CPU that supports DDR.
  • Reply 27 of 52
    eugeneeugene Posts: 8,254member
    [quote]Originally posted by neutrino23:

    <strong>



    That is a bit of an exaggeration but the point is that in the iBook form factory I think that longer battery life and less heat output are more important than the performance boost provided by a G4. Once G4s are available with low enough power consumption they will migrate to the iBook.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    They seem to be available right now, or do you think the PowerBook G4 consumes less power?



    Junkyard Dog, you may want to check the Darwin Dev mailing list and other forums where actual OS X programmers talk. OS X is hardly AltiVec optimized at the core user level.



    I don't consider iTunes, iDVD, iMovie really part of OS X since these can also be found in some form or another for OS 9. What parts of OS X do you know to be AltiVec optimized? Which compiler did they use? Most of OS X is compiled with gcc 2.95.2, without AltiVec.



    [ 05-01-2002: Message edited by: Eugene ]</p>
  • Reply 28 of 52
    mindtricsmindtrics Posts: 5member
    [quote]Originally posted by Rupert:

    <strong>With new 667 and 800, 133 bus, 1 MB L3 DDR cache, 32 MB Radeon graphics, Higher res screen Powerooks out now, what does everyone think the next iBooks will include?



    My guess is:



    600 MHz G4

    100 MHz bus

    128 MB RAM

    15 GB HD

    CD-ROM

    12.1"

    $1399



    700 MHz G4

    100 MHz bus

    128 MB RAM

    20 GB HD

    Combo Drive

    12.1"

    $1599



    700 MHz G4

    100 MHz bus

    256 MB RAM

    20 GB HD

    Combo Drive

    14.1"

    $1799



    [ 04-29-2002: Message edited by: Rupert ]</strong><hr></blockquote>



    ...is anyone else sick of seeing and hearing that apple is still introducing hardware with specs way below the industry average? I swear they are milking these specs to death!



    I'm not trying to dis the tread starter by quoting him, but, shouldn't we exspect more?



    meh...I'm just pissed.
  • Reply 29 of 52
    f1_nutterf1_nutter Posts: 7member
    um not alot really the ibook line got update a couple of months ago an now its the powerBooks turn. I think the next iBooks may have g4 but don't hold you breath on that one, it depeneds when the g5s come out. Mind you have brought out the eMac and supprised everyone. Dunno but I can't see things changing in the near future!
  • Reply 30 of 52
    rupertrupert Posts: 69member
    Sorry but I don't consider the 14" model in January to be a revision, just like the the combo drive revision to the Powerbooks in December wasn't a revision, it was just adding something to the current revision.



    (Before 4-29) The last rev on both Powerbooks and iBooks was October 01. Therefore, I don't think it's out of the range of possibilities that the iBook will see a revision before MWNY (Maybe mid to late May). Apple should have a new iBook in May and then new iMacs and PowerMacs in July at MWNY.



    Also, remember when the white iBook debuted (one year ago today) many considered them to be Apple's best value computer. The best computer for the money. Now, with G4s everywhere else, the iBooks are probably tied with the towers for least value for your money. Apple needs G4 based iBooks, soon.



    There are still many ways to differentiate between Powerbooks and iBooks:



    -Bus speed

    -standard RAM, maximun RAM

    -screen size and resolution

    -video chipset (size and speed)

    -dual monitors vs. mirror image

    -slot loading optical drive vs. tray loading

    -airport card standard

    -caching system

    -DVI out

    -HD size and speed

    -gigabit ethernet vs. 100Base-T

    -S-video out





    -Rupert



    [ 05-01-2002: Message edited by: Rupert ]</p>
  • Reply 31 of 52
    rupertrupert Posts: 69member
    MOSR chimes in... I know, I know, it's MOSR, but it's something to debate anyway...



    G3s up to 800 MHz

    ATi Radeon Mobility 16 MB

    Hard drives up to 30 GB

    12.1 and 14.1 displays

    Price difference between display sizes to increase

    no word on when or where.



    So I would guess the following from that guestimate:



    700, 800, 800 G3

    100 bus for all

    128, 256, 256

    20, 20, 30

    ATi Radeon Mobility 16 MB for all

    12.1, 12.1, 14.1

    CD-ROM, Combo, Combo

    $1299, $1499, $1899





    I think it's a mistake to keep the G3 any longer, but I think it's more important to keep the prices on the iBooks low.



    I'd rather see 800 G3s at $1499 (12.1") than 700 G4s at $1899 (12.1")



    Thoughts?



    -'pert



    [ 05-01-2002: Message edited by: Rupert ]</p>
  • Reply 32 of 52
    mithralmithral Posts: 68member
    [quote]Originally posted by Rupert:

    <strong>

    ...

    So I would guess the following from that guestimate:



    700, 800, 800 G3

    100 bus for all

    128, 256, 256

    20, 20, 30

    ATi Radeon Mobility 16 MB for all

    12.1, 12.1, 14.1

    CD-ROM, Combo, Combo

    $1299, $1499, $1899





    I think it's a mistake to keep the G3 any longer, but I think it's more important to keep the prices on the iBooks low.



    I'd rather see 800 G3s at $1499 (12.1") than 700 G4s at $1899 (12.1")



    Thoughts?



    -'pert



    [ 05-01-2002: Message edited by: Rupert ]</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Your guess is probably pretty close, unfortunately. I think these are the best specs we'll see if the iBook remains a G3, which I agree, is the most likely outcome.



    I think Apple's painted themselves into a corner this time. It's too bad the new Ti's couldn't be 800 - 933 --&gt; that would have given the iBook more room to grow. As it is, one year after its release, the most optimistic estimates for the revised iBook are for an 800 G3. Whoo-hoo. 12 months, 300 MHz. If the Ti's had been clocked higher, the iBook might reasonably have gotten a 733 G4, but right now, that seems nearly impossible.



    Someone prove me wrong. That 667 Ti is a sweet frickin' machine, and I don't have $2500.



    -mithral
  • Reply 33 of 52
    mithralmithral Posts: 68member
    [quote]Originally posted by Eugene:

    <strong>



    They seem to be available right now, or do you think the PowerBook G4 consumes less power?



    Junkyard Dog, you may want to check the Darwin Dev mailing list and other forums where actual OS X programmers talk. OS X is hardly AltiVec optimized at the core user level.



    I don't consider iTunes, iDVD, iMovie really part of OS X since these can also be found in some form or another for OS 9. What parts of OS X do you know to be AltiVec optimized? Which compiler did they use? Most of OS X is compiled with gcc 2.95.2, without AltiVec.



    [ 05-01-2002: Message edited by: Eugene ]</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Well, if this is true, then maybe I should be more optimistic - an 800 G3 might be adequate for OSX. All I know is that on an iBook 600 with standard RAM, the Finder seems pokey.



    Also, anyone know what kind of real performance difference there is between a Radeon Mobility 16MB and a Radeon Mobility 7500 16MB? (Does ATI even make a 16MB version of the 7500?) Thanks.



    -mithral
  • Reply 34 of 52
    anamacanamac Posts: 80member
    In the best of all possible worlds, everyone should have a choice of a portable Mac tailored to a perfect fit of features and price. Barring winning the lottery tomorrow, a lot of TiBook hungry buyers will be going for an iBook, but at this point, feeling like it's a big compromise. Some sweet upgrades are feeling overdue. Apple can expand its markets by offering some more 'e' lines at low cost to train the next gen to love Macs, but be mindful of non-students who want the power, speed and style at still affordable prices.

    More models or just more options on the existing infrastructure? What do you think?
  • Reply 35 of 52
    photoeditorphotoeditor Posts: 243member
    The 7500 is massively faster on games than the regular Radeon; the problem is that you need a very fast processor to see any benefit at typical screen resolutions. With a 1GHz you're going to see 100 fps; at 600MHz, all you're going to see is 60 fps like the regular Radeon, but the difference is it will keep doing that all the way to 1600x1200, while the regular Radeon starts to slow down quickly with the higher resolutions.



    Short answer; in an iBook, with current processor speeds, current video-mirroring-only output capability and the current 1024x768 displays, the regular Radeon Mobility would be the optimal card (with a doubling in game performance over the Rage 128 Mobility), and the Radeon 7500 would be utterly wasted. On a TiBook, however, the 32MB VRAM helps with much better dual monitor support (2048x1536 on the external monitor!), and the faster chip maintains game screenrates with the higher resolution display, and, with the clock speed up to 800MHz, that's just enough to start taking the computer where the regular Radeon can't go.
  • Reply 36 of 52
    baumanbauman Posts: 1,248member
    Apple has some big problems on thier hands, and it didn't get any easier with the last TiBook bump.



    If the iBooks go directly to a G4, 600 - 700 MHz would probably be the minimum saleable clock speeds. BUT - the Ti is still at 667 (for 2500, at that). You can't have a 700MHz processor in a 1800 'book while there's a 667 in a 2500 'book (Not that didn't happen - Just look at MWSF for a real life example in desktop line). So if they go directly to G4, I'd say 550, 650 MHz max.



    Now if they stick with the G3, I think will probably go to 600, 700 MHz, and you still have a 'book that has a faster clockspeed than another, more expensive one. I know the difference, but will a CompUSA chum know it? If they go to 800 (Like MOSR suggests), it will make the leap to G4 all the more difficult (assuming Apple wants all lines on the G4), and it would be really bad if they went backwards in clockspeed.



    I think Apple would have made the PR aspect of their new releases much better if they could have pushed the 667 chip in the Ti up to 700. 700 looks like a bigger number than 667, at least more than 33MHz, and it would allow the iBook to be closer to the TiBook without being quite as noticeable.



    But really . . . what do I know?
  • Reply 37 of 52
    amorphamorph Posts: 7,112member
    Remember that when the iBook SE came out, it boasted a 466MHz G3, eclipsing the 400MHz TiBook.



    There are enough other differences between the iBook and the TiBook - not least that one processor is a G3 and the other's a G4 - that I don't think Apple will be too paranoid about the iBook CPU's clock speed.



    Now, if they decide to put a G4 in the next iBook, things might be a bit different.
  • Reply 38 of 52
    matsumatsu Posts: 6,558member
    I think Apple would either stick with the Rage128 or move to the Radeon7500 (even for the iBook) At the time you really couldn't get anything better for the first Ti's, so Apple put in the Rage. Then, when the 550/667's came out, 7500 was just shipping, thus those TiBooks had to use Radeon M, as they probably couldn't get enough Radeon7500 for production and they needed to decide on a chip if they were to do any development/testing/debugging etc etc.



    Now 7500 is available in quantity and already used in one product. From a development and support standpoint it may just be easier to stick a 7500 in the iBook while disabling the spanning and halving the VRAM down to 16MB. They sell a lot of iBooks, they could probably get a good enough price to make skipping Radeon M possible.



    I think the same game was afoot with the 2MX of the iMac/eMac. Especially now that we know both had been in development for some time. They had to decide on something to proceed with development. Unlike the towers, since you can't change GPU's or displays, flawless performance was critical. It wouldn't do to have 4MX flashing the LCD screen of the imac. It doesn't do to have it fvcking up the towers either, but we can blame nVidia for most of that. With 4MX still far enough away during e/iMacs dev life, Apple picked something stable, fast, and cheap enough (by the projected release date) to get the machine done right. Since nv-17 was concieved as a psuedo-laptop GPU/desktop budget GPU it has some natural advantages for the small enclosed spaces of an iMac. I bet it's being worked on right now, and will drop in with similar ease to the Radeon to Radeon7500 transition of Ti.
  • Reply 39 of 52
    emaneman Posts: 7,204member
    [quote]Originally posted by Amorph:

    <strong>Remember that when the iBook SE came out, it boasted a 466MHz G3, eclipsing the 400MHz TiBook.

    </strong><hr></blockquote>



    And also when the Dual-USB iBook first came out it was 500MHz, same as the high end Ti.
  • Reply 40 of 52
    macintoshmacintosh Posts: 22member
    Hi everyone! I am new here but I have some opinions to share.



    1.) I think it is inevitable for the iBook to get a G4 because Apple likes to tout the G4 so much and it would only follow suit with the other products.



    2.) A G4 will be needed sometime anyway, why not put one in now?



    3.) OS X performs well on the G4.



    4.) The emac has a G4 and it is for education too, the iBook should have a G4 at its price, if only on the top of the line model.
Sign In or Register to comment.