Does anyone know if it is possible to make architectural changes to things like the ALUs without a complete re-design / starting from ground zero? This seems unlikely to me but it would be nice if IBM could do something about the lackluster integer performance.
Depends on the change you want to make. The PPPC970's integer performance is the result of a design decision by the engineers at IBM though and not easily fixed without a fairly substantial overhaul. Integer performance is still quite good so I wouldn't be complaining too much.
Early 2004:iBook redesign adding 1Ghz G3, USB 2, FW 800, Airport Extreme Full redesign of displays iPod update and size bump
That sounds a bit boring for MWSF.
The January MWSF is now the most important expo of the year and they need something impressive to fill it with. It's also a consumer-oriented show, which leaves out the xServes.
An iMac G5 just maybe, but I'm hoping the Mac Tablet is ready to introduce...
I can just see Jobs giving it the nice buildup that the iMac 2 got - "how we designed it, why we chose this feature", perhaps even Phil Schiller jumping off a 15 foot platform while scribbling a note to his mother.
Before 2003 ends:Full redesign of displays eMac update to match new iMac specs Media event to release 2U XServe G5 (to accompany XServe G4). Early 2004:iBook redesign adding 1Ghz G3, USB 2, FW 800, Airport Extreme iPod update and size bump and moderate price cut Spring/Summer 2004:PowerMac G5 speed bump PowerBook G5 release (late summer or fall)
Cosmonut, you are an excellent prognosticator. My humble suggested revisions above in italics.
Does anyone know if it is possible to make architectural changes to things like the ALUs without a complete re-design / starting from ground zero? This seems unlikely to me but it would be nice if IBM could do something about the lackluster integer performance.
Why do you think it is lackluster? In comparison to the 750, 7450, Pentium 4, or Athlon? It should be about the same on a per MHz basis as the 750 and 7450.
But that's the problem, it shouldn't really be about what Apple thinks. It should be about what the market wants, and there is a market for all sorts of different laptops, including 8 lb 1.5+ inch and 3 lb 0.8 inch laptops. Tartarus, back in the Powerbook G3 days, Apple in fact had 1.5+ inch laptops.
It seems to me that Apple doesn't follow the market so much as lead it. Just because they can do it, doesn't mean they should do it.\
Quote:
The existence of a Powerbook G5 does not negate the existence of a Powerbook G4, or a laptop with the current ~1 inch thick form factors.
No, but it does blow the design language out the window, not the mention the Apple mystique for asthetic product design.
Quote:
It's not an engineering problem. It's Apple not wanting to or not having the resources (manufacturing, people) to do so.
Actually, it [I]is[/I} an enginnering problem. How do you cram a new really hot chip into a footprint that conforms with Apples design standards? Answer: you can't. At least, not yet.
It seems to me that Apple doesn't follow the market so much as lead it. Just because they can do it, doesn't mean they should do it.\
They lead in form factor design and aesthetics, but Apple does follow a market. A couple of particular markets where great margins can be gotten. Problem is that there is room for much more, and they won't enter them.
Quote:
No, but it does blow the design language out the window, not the mention the Apple mystique for asthetic product design.
I think this is tremendously debatable. How will it blow the design language and Apple mystique? Why can't they can design a 1.5+ inch thick laptop that is as beautiful and elegant as the current aluminum Powerbooks and Power Macs.
Quote:
Actually, it is an enginnering problem. How do you cram a new really hot chip into a footprint that conforms with Apples design standards? Answer: you can't. At least, not yet.
Hehe, when did I say Apple should cram the 970 into Apple's current Powerbook G4 footprint? I've been pretty consistent in saying that the Powerbook G4 really should be a mid-range notebook in the $1400 to $2000 price range, and a prospective Powerbook G5 would be a 1.5+ inch laptop in the $2000+ high end laptop market.
Just look at x86 notebooks. They use desktop Pentium 4 chips that use 80+ Watts, Mobile Pentium 4 chips that use 70+ Watts, Pentium 4-M chips that use 40+ Watts, and Pentium-M chips that use 25+ Watts. All of them in notebooks being sold today.
Speaking as one whose laptop does radiate this much heat, I can say that yes it can be done, and yes I wear headphones so that I don't hear my DUAL fans spinning up all the time. Sure technically it can be done. And when you unplug your Moster CPU from the wall, it will cut its clockspeed in half so that it doesn't drain your batteries in under two hours. That's really useful: a laptop designed to always be plugged into a wall.
Quote:
They lead in form factor design and aesthetics, but Apple does follow a market. A couple of particular markets where great margins can be gotten. Problem is that there is room for much more, and they won't enter them.
Yes, they do lead in these market places, and this is why Apple is doing well. Apple is succeeding because they are NOT going for the low end cheapo laprop market. Apple can not compete with Dell in that market place because Dell doesn't pay any money for innovation. Apple is building a brand name on quality and design, and in about six to eight months, CPU power.
Quote:
Apple can very easily have a 1.6 GHz PPC 970, about 40 Watts maximum at 1.1V, notebook if they wanted. They will have to compromise with the thickness, a 1.5+ inch thick notebook will allow for 120+ Watt-hour batteries, twice that of current Apple batteries, and compromise on weight which probably will be around 8 lb.
Umm, duh no?
There is more to a laptop than the chip. There is also the issue of a laptop friendly motherboard (i.e. a small low power motherboard). Yes, Apple could make a 1.6GHz 970 laptop that dissipated 40W of heat, was 1.5 inches thick, and weighted eight pounds. It would look as appealing as my two inch thick Dell P4 that weighs ten pounds with two batteries. In other words, it would be a monster.
Apple's new PB's are not revolutionary when it comes to motherboards (een though they do have different motherboards when compared to the previous rev), but this lack of newness undoubtedly meant that Apple could get the things out sooner. A Powerbook G5 would not be out at the same time because it would take so much more engineering effort. How many people would want to see Apple delay new PBs until January-March?
People do buy things because they look good. For things that are portable, a good goal is to make them lightweight. I will say that Apple should have not reduced the capacity of their batteries from 65Wh to 41Wh.
Quote:
Apple has already said they intend on shipping 1.1V versions of the 970. They currently are at 1.3V. The voltage reduction reductions power consumption and therefore heat dissipation by about 20%, and along with bus slewing (dynamic voltage and frequency cycling) that is already used in the current Power Mac G5 systems, it is eminently possible to ship a 970 notebook.
So Apple would have to wait for IBM to ship new CPUs as well. This would move the ship date of Apple's G5 powerbooks even further back.
I think that the lower voltage G5's will go into all machines- desktop and laptop. Less heat dissipation is a good thing regardless of the enclosure.
Quote:
I think this is tremendously debatable. How will it blow the design language and Apple mystique? Why can't they can design a 1.5+ inch thick laptop that is as beautiful and elegant as the current aluminum Powerbooks and Power Macs.
Because Apple makes elegant laptops. Hands down. My roommate just switched and one of the strong pros of switching was simply the fact that the new 15 Al book looks great. So Apple just got a switcher because their products look good.
Steve Jobs RDF is pretty strong, but it doesn't make you think that 1.5 inches is 1.1 inchs.
Quote:
Apple just likes margins more than marketshare. Maybe they cranked the numbers and it shows that they won't sell much more systems with lower margins, and therefore sells the current systems seen. But it isn't because of engineering difficulties stopping them from shipping 970 notebooks.
Oh nonsense.
Where would Apple's marketshare be if they decided to not release any new powerbooks this year? The current PBs having a G4 is not about Apple spiting its customers, but about Apple actually getting a newer product into the hands of customers so that they can buy the product. How would Apple grow marketshare if they delayed releasing powerbooks for another four to six months? Judging by the fact that the PB is the number one seller at the Apple store, customers agree with Apple that despite not having a G5, this is a good laptop.
You are really confusing what is technically possible to engineer, versus what is practical to engineer in a given ammount of time. The two are profoundly different. I think that you are operating on the assumption that if Apple wanted to, they could have shipped G5 laptops this week. This assumption is completely false. Apple just sarted shipping G5s in desktops. There is NO way they could be shipping G5s in laptops given the extra design work that would have to accompany a new laptop motherboard, case, etc.
Speaking as one whose laptop does radiate this much heat, I can say that yes it can be done, and yes I wear headphones so that I don't hear my DUAL fans spinning up all the time. Sure technically it can be done. And when you unplug your Moster CPU from the wall, it will cut its clockspeed in half so that it doesn't drain your batteries in under two hours. That's really useful: a laptop designed to always be plugged into a wall.
Like it or not, there is a market for desktop replacement laptops that are primarily plugged in all the time. This is the way many a person or corporation will use computers in the future: a laptop that is plugged in at work, that same laptop plugged in at home, and used unplugged for short periods while traveling.
Quote:
Yes, they do lead in these market places, and this is why Apple is doing well. Apple is succeeding because they are NOT going for the low end cheapo laprop market. Apple can not compete with Dell in that market place because Dell doesn't pay any money for innovation. Apple is building a brand name on quality and design, and in about six to eight months, CPU power.
All you are telling me is that Apple is happy with its niche. There are people (not to mention corporations) who want desktop replacement laptops, others who want ultra-thin ultra-light notebooks, and those who want higher resolution screens. Apple can grow their revenue, marketshare, and profits if they start offering products that cover more of the market.
If laptops are going to be the primary computer market in the future, and all signs say they are (Jobs is right, the all-in-one is the most user friendly computer, it was just waiting for a affordable laptop form factor), then Apple will need to diversify their notebook offerings even more. They already offer "tweener" laptops as seen with the 14" iBook and 12" Powerbook.
Quote:
There is more to a laptop than the chip. There is also the issue of a laptop friendly motherboard (i.e. a small low power motherboard). Yes, Apple could make a 1.6GHz 970 laptop that dissipated 40W of heat, was 1.5 inches thick, and weighted eight pounds. It would look as appealing as my two inch thick Dell P4 that weighs ten pounds with two batteries. In other words, it would be a monster.
So you do not think Apple can make an aesthetic laptop form factor 1.5+ inches thick? Are you saying the 1.7 inch thick Pismo Powerbook G3 and 2.01 inch original Powerbook G3 are ugly? I myself would find a Power Mac G5 themed laptop - grill, fans, and all - rather captivating. If Apple sold the current Powerbook G4 as a mid-ranged notebook, what is lost?
Quote:
Apple's new PB's are not revolutionary when it comes to motherboards (een though they do have different motherboards when compared to the previous rev), but this lack of newness undoubtedly meant that Apple could get the things out sooner.
Apple's product release cycle, as it seems to me, is inventory and channel driven, not engineering driven. They haven't had many engineering challenges since they started used the same architecture for all their systems, both desktops and laptops, some 4 years ago. In the case of the current Powerbook release, the long tent in the pole was the availability of the 7457 CPU, otherwise the only changes the Powerbook G4 motherboard, as shipped in the Powerbook G4 12" and 17" in February, was adding a PCI USB 2.0 controller and changing out the graphics chip. They could have shipped the Powerbook G4 in June if enough 7457 chips were available.
In the future, when Apple has a Powerbook G5, dollars to donuts the Powerbook G5 architecture is going to be 90% the same as the Power Mac G5: same system ASIC, same I/O ASIC, same PMU controller, same I/O physical layer chips, etc.
Quote:
A Powerbook G5 would not be out at the same time because it would take so much more engineering effort. How many people would want to see Apple delay new PBs until January-March?
The presumption is always that Apple has the manpower to do so.
Quote:
People do buy things because they look good.
Unfortunately, not enough people do so. If they did, Apple would sell more machines.
Quote:
I think that the lower voltage G5's will go into all machines- desktop and laptop. Less heat dissipation is a good thing regardless of the enclosure.
If the lower voltage G5 is more expensive, and they inevitably are, as well as lower MHz, it only makes sense to put them in laptops since Apple can charge a premium for them. The lower cost higher voltage chips, the ones with the most yield should go into lower cost systems.
Quote:
Where would Apple's marketshare be if they decided to not release any new powerbooks this year? The current PBs having a G4 is not about Apple spiting its customers, but about Apple actually getting a newer product into the hands of customers so that they can buy the product.
Back in October of 2002, Apple knew - rather, Motorola was advertising the fact - that Motorola would not have 74x7 G4 CPUs in quantity until Q4 of 2003. So they knew they would have live with 1 GHz notebooks for 10 months. I don't think Apple is "spiting" its customers, merely not driven enough. So they release a mid-range Powerbook G4 and a high-end Powerbook G5. What is lost?
Now for actual spite, look at the architectures of the iMac 17 and Powerbook 17. The motherboard is 90% identical and they use the same screen. Where do you think the extra $1200 is going?
Quote:
You are really confusing what is technically possible to engineer, versus what is practical to engineer in a given ammount of time. The two are profoundly different. I think that you are operating on the assumption that if Apple wanted to, they could have shipped G5 laptops this week. This assumption is completely false. Apple just sarted shipping G5s in desktops.
This has long been granted, that Apple doesn't have the resources to do multiple architectures at the same time, or they choose not to. They work on each one at a time and the architecture cascades down to other machines. But in the AI fantasy world, Apple has at least two hardware engineering teams, one working on the Power Mac G5 and one working on the Powerbook G5 at the same time. It's a packaging issue, not a system architecture one, so it's not a total duplication of teams.
An iMac G5 just maybe, but I'm hoping the Mac Tablet is ready to introduce...
My friend, you are going t be waiting a very long time.
Well, a week is a long time in politics AND computing, so another year or two is plenty of time to finish it.
And they are working on something... Otherwise why bother to devote the personnel to implementing and documenting an API for it. (There aren't *that* many Wacom users around.)
Ink Services: Apple is introducing a new Ink Services API in Panther so that developers can take advantage of Ink input for their applications and integrate Ink further into their software. Using the API, developers can put together customized Ink solutions such as lists of alternate word interpretations and direct manipulation of text using Ink gestures. Apple also notes in its developer documentation that Panther's Ink recognition engine supports English, French, and German.
Quote:
Originally posted by Addison
The Tablet is scheduled for release one month after the iNewton.
Enough with the smartass Newton comments! The Newton had its day and inspired better PDAs such as the Palm and PocketPC.
It is now dead (except in the hands of cultists).
Apple doesn't have to go crazy and revive a dead PDA for them to decide Tablets (a variation on the laptop theme) are in every computing maker's future at some point.
An Apple PDA is not going to happen, an Apple Tablet in some form will... eventually.
I would tend to agree that the Xserve line needs updating. I think architecural changes are more likely, though. USB 2.0, SATA, Panther Server and price cuts. Nothing spectacular, but that's ok for servers.
In the long run I think the G4 Xserve is going to stick around. It's nice, concentrated 32-bit computing power with ample storage.
A 2U or 3U dual G5 Xserve would then become the high-end and, while not as compact, offer an advantage for clients needing a powerful 64-bit machine with high bandwith. If it ends up being a larger server, it could also have enough space for improvements like redundant power supplies which would further differentiate it from its G4 brethren.
And maybe I'm crazy, but I think the 750vx even has a place in the Xserve lineup, either as a low-end, inexpensive "switcher" machine for the server room, or as a low-heat, high density CPU for use in blade servers, when Apple's server venture has matured sufficiently to allow such machines.
Comments
Originally posted by Moogs
Does anyone know if it is possible to make architectural changes to things like the ALUs without a complete re-design / starting from ground zero? This seems unlikely to me but it would be nice if IBM could do something about the lackluster integer performance.
Depends on the change you want to make. The PPPC970's integer performance is the result of a design decision by the engineers at IBM though and not easily fixed without a fairly substantial overhaul. Integer performance is still quite good so I wouldn't be complaining too much.
Originally posted by CosmoNut
Early 2004:iBook redesign adding 1Ghz G3, USB 2, FW 800, Airport Extreme
Full redesign of displays
iPod update and size bump
That sounds a bit boring for MWSF.
The January MWSF is now the most important expo of the year and they need something impressive to fill it with. It's also a consumer-oriented show, which leaves out the xServes.
An iMac G5 just maybe, but I'm hoping the Mac Tablet is ready to introduce...
I can just see Jobs giving it the nice buildup that the iMac 2 got - "how we designed it, why we chose this feature", perhaps even Phil Schiller jumping off a 15 foot platform while scribbling a note to his mother.
(Tablet... I'm going to burn for this.)
Originally posted by CosmoNut
Before 2003 ends:Full redesign of displays
eMac update to match new iMac specs
Media event to release 2U XServe G5 (to accompany XServe G4).
Early 2004:iBook redesign adding 1Ghz G3, USB 2, FW 800, Airport Extreme
iPod update and size bump and moderate price cut
Spring/Summer 2004:PowerMac G5 speed bump
PowerBook G5 release (late summer or fall)
Cosmonut, you are an excellent prognosticator. My humble suggested revisions above in italics.
Originally posted by Moogs
Does anyone know if it is possible to make architectural changes to things like the ALUs without a complete re-design / starting from ground zero? This seems unlikely to me but it would be nice if IBM could do something about the lackluster integer performance.
Why do you think it is lackluster? In comparison to the 750, 7450, Pentium 4, or Athlon? It should be about the same on a per MHz basis as the 750 and 7450.
never mind. I'm an a$$.
tsukurite
Originally posted by THT
But that's the problem, it shouldn't really be about what Apple thinks. It should be about what the market wants, and there is a market for all sorts of different laptops, including 8 lb 1.5+ inch and 3 lb 0.8 inch laptops. Tartarus, back in the Powerbook G3 days, Apple in fact had 1.5+ inch laptops.
It seems to me that Apple doesn't follow the market so much as lead it. Just because they can do it, doesn't mean they should do it.
The existence of a Powerbook G5 does not negate the existence of a Powerbook G4, or a laptop with the current ~1 inch thick form factors.
No, but it does blow the design language out the window, not the mention the Apple mystique for asthetic product design.
It's not an engineering problem. It's Apple not wanting to or not having the resources (manufacturing, people) to do so.
Actually, it [I]is[/I} an enginnering problem. How do you cram a new really hot chip into a footprint that conforms with Apples design standards? Answer: you can't. At least, not yet.
My .02
Originally posted by tsukurite
It seems to me that Apple doesn't follow the market so much as lead it. Just because they can do it, doesn't mean they should do it.
They lead in form factor design and aesthetics, but Apple does follow a market. A couple of particular markets where great margins can be gotten. Problem is that there is room for much more, and they won't enter them.
No, but it does blow the design language out the window, not the mention the Apple mystique for asthetic product design.
I think this is tremendously debatable. How will it blow the design language and Apple mystique? Why can't they can design a 1.5+ inch thick laptop that is as beautiful and elegant as the current aluminum Powerbooks and Power Macs.
Actually, it is an enginnering problem. How do you cram a new really hot chip into a footprint that conforms with Apples design standards? Answer: you can't. At least, not yet.
Hehe, when did I say Apple should cram the 970 into Apple's current Powerbook G4 footprint? I've been pretty consistent in saying that the Powerbook G4 really should be a mid-range notebook in the $1400 to $2000 price range, and a prospective Powerbook G5 would be a 1.5+ inch laptop in the $2000+ high end laptop market.
Originally posted by michaelb
An iMac G5 just maybe, but I'm hoping the Mac Tablet is ready to introduce...
My friend, you are going t be waiting a very long time.
Originally posted by THT
Just look at x86 notebooks. They use desktop Pentium 4 chips that use 80+ Watts, Mobile Pentium 4 chips that use 70+ Watts, Pentium 4-M chips that use 40+ Watts, and Pentium-M chips that use 25+ Watts. All of them in notebooks being sold today.
Speaking as one whose laptop does radiate this much heat, I can say that yes it can be done, and yes I wear headphones so that I don't hear my DUAL fans spinning up all the time. Sure technically it can be done. And when you unplug your Moster CPU from the wall, it will cut its clockspeed in half so that it doesn't drain your batteries in under two hours. That's really useful: a laptop designed to always be plugged into a wall.
They lead in form factor design and aesthetics, but Apple does follow a market. A couple of particular markets where great margins can be gotten. Problem is that there is room for much more, and they won't enter them.
Yes, they do lead in these market places, and this is why Apple is doing well. Apple is succeeding because they are NOT going for the low end cheapo laprop market. Apple can not compete with Dell in that market place because Dell doesn't pay any money for innovation. Apple is building a brand name on quality and design, and in about six to eight months, CPU power.
Apple can very easily have a 1.6 GHz PPC 970, about 40 Watts maximum at 1.1V, notebook if they wanted. They will have to compromise with the thickness, a 1.5+ inch thick notebook will allow for 120+ Watt-hour batteries, twice that of current Apple batteries, and compromise on weight which probably will be around 8 lb.
Umm, duh no?
There is more to a laptop than the chip. There is also the issue of a laptop friendly motherboard (i.e. a small low power motherboard). Yes, Apple could make a 1.6GHz 970 laptop that dissipated 40W of heat, was 1.5 inches thick, and weighted eight pounds. It would look as appealing as my two inch thick Dell P4 that weighs ten pounds with two batteries. In other words, it would be a monster.
Apple's new PB's are not revolutionary when it comes to motherboards (een though they do have different motherboards when compared to the previous rev), but this lack of newness undoubtedly meant that Apple could get the things out sooner. A Powerbook G5 would not be out at the same time because it would take so much more engineering effort. How many people would want to see Apple delay new PBs until January-March?
People do buy things because they look good. For things that are portable, a good goal is to make them lightweight. I will say that Apple should have not reduced the capacity of their batteries from 65Wh to 41Wh.
Apple has already said they intend on shipping 1.1V versions of the 970. They currently are at 1.3V. The voltage reduction reductions power consumption and therefore heat dissipation by about 20%, and along with bus slewing (dynamic voltage and frequency cycling) that is already used in the current Power Mac G5 systems, it is eminently possible to ship a 970 notebook.
So Apple would have to wait for IBM to ship new CPUs as well. This would move the ship date of Apple's G5 powerbooks even further back.
I think that the lower voltage G5's will go into all machines- desktop and laptop. Less heat dissipation is a good thing regardless of the enclosure.
I think this is tremendously debatable. How will it blow the design language and Apple mystique? Why can't they can design a 1.5+ inch thick laptop that is as beautiful and elegant as the current aluminum Powerbooks and Power Macs.
Because Apple makes elegant laptops. Hands down. My roommate just switched and one of the strong pros of switching was simply the fact that the new 15 Al book looks great. So Apple just got a switcher because their products look good.
Steve Jobs RDF is pretty strong, but it doesn't make you think that 1.5 inches is 1.1 inchs.
Apple just likes margins more than marketshare. Maybe they cranked the numbers and it shows that they won't sell much more systems with lower margins, and therefore sells the current systems seen. But it isn't because of engineering difficulties stopping them from shipping 970 notebooks.
Oh nonsense.
Where would Apple's marketshare be if they decided to not release any new powerbooks this year? The current PBs having a G4 is not about Apple spiting its customers, but about Apple actually getting a newer product into the hands of customers so that they can buy the product. How would Apple grow marketshare if they delayed releasing powerbooks for another four to six months? Judging by the fact that the PB is the number one seller at the Apple store, customers agree with Apple that despite not having a G5, this is a good laptop.
You are really confusing what is technically possible to engineer, versus what is practical to engineer in a given ammount of time. The two are profoundly different. I think that you are operating on the assumption that if Apple wanted to, they could have shipped G5 laptops this week. This assumption is completely false. Apple just sarted shipping G5s in desktops. There is NO way they could be shipping G5s in laptops given the extra design work that would have to accompany a new laptop motherboard, case, etc.
Originally posted by Yevgeny
Speaking as one whose laptop does radiate this much heat, I can say that yes it can be done, and yes I wear headphones so that I don't hear my DUAL fans spinning up all the time. Sure technically it can be done. And when you unplug your Moster CPU from the wall, it will cut its clockspeed in half so that it doesn't drain your batteries in under two hours. That's really useful: a laptop designed to always be plugged into a wall.
Like it or not, there is a market for desktop replacement laptops that are primarily plugged in all the time. This is the way many a person or corporation will use computers in the future: a laptop that is plugged in at work, that same laptop plugged in at home, and used unplugged for short periods while traveling.
Yes, they do lead in these market places, and this is why Apple is doing well. Apple is succeeding because they are NOT going for the low end cheapo laprop market. Apple can not compete with Dell in that market place because Dell doesn't pay any money for innovation. Apple is building a brand name on quality and design, and in about six to eight months, CPU power.
All you are telling me is that Apple is happy with its niche. There are people (not to mention corporations) who want desktop replacement laptops, others who want ultra-thin ultra-light notebooks, and those who want higher resolution screens. Apple can grow their revenue, marketshare, and profits if they start offering products that cover more of the market.
If laptops are going to be the primary computer market in the future, and all signs say they are (Jobs is right, the all-in-one is the most user friendly computer, it was just waiting for a affordable laptop form factor), then Apple will need to diversify their notebook offerings even more. They already offer "tweener" laptops as seen with the 14" iBook and 12" Powerbook.
There is more to a laptop than the chip. There is also the issue of a laptop friendly motherboard (i.e. a small low power motherboard). Yes, Apple could make a 1.6GHz 970 laptop that dissipated 40W of heat, was 1.5 inches thick, and weighted eight pounds. It would look as appealing as my two inch thick Dell P4 that weighs ten pounds with two batteries. In other words, it would be a monster.
So you do not think Apple can make an aesthetic laptop form factor 1.5+ inches thick? Are you saying the 1.7 inch thick Pismo Powerbook G3 and 2.01 inch original Powerbook G3 are ugly? I myself would find a Power Mac G5 themed laptop - grill, fans, and all - rather captivating. If Apple sold the current Powerbook G4 as a mid-ranged notebook, what is lost?
Apple's new PB's are not revolutionary when it comes to motherboards (een though they do have different motherboards when compared to the previous rev), but this lack of newness undoubtedly meant that Apple could get the things out sooner.
Apple's product release cycle, as it seems to me, is inventory and channel driven, not engineering driven. They haven't had many engineering challenges since they started used the same architecture for all their systems, both desktops and laptops, some 4 years ago. In the case of the current Powerbook release, the long tent in the pole was the availability of the 7457 CPU, otherwise the only changes the Powerbook G4 motherboard, as shipped in the Powerbook G4 12" and 17" in February, was adding a PCI USB 2.0 controller and changing out the graphics chip. They could have shipped the Powerbook G4 in June if enough 7457 chips were available.
In the future, when Apple has a Powerbook G5, dollars to donuts the Powerbook G5 architecture is going to be 90% the same as the Power Mac G5: same system ASIC, same I/O ASIC, same PMU controller, same I/O physical layer chips, etc.
A Powerbook G5 would not be out at the same time because it would take so much more engineering effort. How many people would want to see Apple delay new PBs until January-March?
The presumption is always that Apple has the manpower to do so.
People do buy things because they look good.
Unfortunately, not enough people do so. If they did, Apple would sell more machines.
I think that the lower voltage G5's will go into all machines- desktop and laptop. Less heat dissipation is a good thing regardless of the enclosure.
If the lower voltage G5 is more expensive, and they inevitably are, as well as lower MHz, it only makes sense to put them in laptops since Apple can charge a premium for them. The lower cost higher voltage chips, the ones with the most yield should go into lower cost systems.
Where would Apple's marketshare be if they decided to not release any new powerbooks this year? The current PBs having a G4 is not about Apple spiting its customers, but about Apple actually getting a newer product into the hands of customers so that they can buy the product.
Back in October of 2002, Apple knew - rather, Motorola was advertising the fact - that Motorola would not have 74x7 G4 CPUs in quantity until Q4 of 2003. So they knew they would have live with 1 GHz notebooks for 10 months. I don't think Apple is "spiting" its customers, merely not driven enough. So they release a mid-range Powerbook G4 and a high-end Powerbook G5. What is lost?
Now for actual spite, look at the architectures of the iMac 17 and Powerbook 17. The motherboard is 90% identical and they use the same screen. Where do you think the extra $1200 is going?
You are really confusing what is technically possible to engineer, versus what is practical to engineer in a given ammount of time. The two are profoundly different. I think that you are operating on the assumption that if Apple wanted to, they could have shipped G5 laptops this week. This assumption is completely false. Apple just sarted shipping G5s in desktops.
This has long been granted, that Apple doesn't have the resources to do multiple architectures at the same time, or they choose not to. They work on each one at a time and the architecture cascades down to other machines. But in the AI fantasy world, Apple has at least two hardware engineering teams, one working on the Power Mac G5 and one working on the Powerbook G5 at the same time. It's a packaging issue, not a system architecture one, so it's not a total duplication of teams.
Originally posted by rageous
Originally posted by michaelb
An iMac G5 just maybe, but I'm hoping the Mac Tablet is ready to introduce...
My friend, you are going t be waiting a very long time.
Well, a week is a long time in politics AND computing, so another year or two is plenty of time to finish it.
And they are working on something... Otherwise why bother to devote the personnel to implementing and documenting an API for it. (There aren't *that* many Wacom users around.)
http://www.thinksecret.com/news/pantherdeveloper.html
Ink Services: Apple is introducing a new Ink Services API in Panther so that developers can take advantage of Ink input for their applications and integrate Ink further into their software. Using the API, developers can put together customized Ink solutions such as lists of alternate word interpretations and direct manipulation of text using Ink gestures. Apple also notes in its developer documentation that Panther's Ink recognition engine supports English, French, and German.
Originally posted by Addison
The Tablet is scheduled for release one month after the iNewton.
Enough with the smartass Newton comments! The Newton had its day and inspired better PDAs such as the Palm and PocketPC.
It is now dead (except in the hands of cultists).
Apple doesn't have to go crazy and revive a dead PDA for them to decide Tablets (a variation on the laptop theme) are in every computing maker's future at some point.
An Apple PDA is not going to happen, an Apple Tablet in some form will... eventually.
In the long run I think the G4 Xserve is going to stick around. It's nice, concentrated 32-bit computing power with ample storage.
A 2U or 3U dual G5 Xserve would then become the high-end and, while not as compact, offer an advantage for clients needing a powerful 64-bit machine with high bandwith. If it ends up being a larger server, it could also have enough space for improvements like redundant power supplies which would further differentiate it from its G4 brethren.
And maybe I'm crazy, but I think the 750vx even has a place in the Xserve lineup, either as a low-end, inexpensive "switcher" machine for the server room, or as a low-heat, high density CPU for use in blade servers, when Apple's server venture has matured sufficiently to allow such machines.