My guess is that a speed bumped iBook along with USB 2.0 and airport extreme capabilty will be quietly announced on the website this coming week. No special event in October. I don't believe Apple does special events for anything but new product intros (iPod, Flat Panel iMac, etc.), not upgraded ones.
They should really let the G3 go faster then the G4, enough of this crippling crap. If they have it they should sell it. 1.25 ghz G3 let them go! And they need to go back to the other "gloss" ibook design or get a new one. The current ones look like crap.
They should really let the G3 go faster then the G4, enough of this crippling crap. If they have it they should sell it. 1.25 ghz G3 let them go! And they need to go back to the other "gloss" ibook design or get a new one. The current ones look like crap.
If the IBM G3 variant can hit 1.1GHz, Apple will almost certainly ship it. This wouldn't be the first time that an iBook was actually clocked faster than a Powerbook model (i.e. 900MHz G3 vs. 837MHz G4).
Only reason it might not happen is if the new G3 is a little too good.
They should really let the G3 go faster then the G4, enough of this crippling crap.
This myth must die.
The 900MHz 750FX G3 in the iBooks has the highest clock speed the fastest G3 currently in production will ever reach. When Apple puts in the 750GX it too will be running just as fast as its little 5 stage pipeline can carry it.
Nobody is crippling the G3. The idea that it can somehow scale up past the G4 completely ignores its design, its design goals and its intended market.
The 900MHz 750FX G3 in the iBooks has the highest clock speed the fastest G3 currently in production will ever reach. When Apple puts in the 750GX it too will be running just as fast as its little 5 stage pipeline can carry it.
Nobody is crippling the G3. The idea that it can somehow scale up past the G4 completely ignores its design, its design goals and its intended market.
So, you believe that the iBook will continue to ship with a 900MHz G3 until shipping G5 Powerbooks allow the iBook to use a "G4" CPU?
The 750GX has moderately higher power consumption specs, is pin compatible with the 750FX, and scheduled for production by December 2003. Sampling of the chip in summer 2003 would probably give Apple engineers enough time to design the "new" iBook specs (refresh) for fall 2003 launch.
I for one doubt that Apple will allow the iBook to languish until mid/late 2004, particularly given a history of bi-annual model updates. New models will probably have 1GHz G3 for base model and 1.1 GHz for "top end" model.
Keep in mind that clocked CPU speed doesn't necessarily mean that the new iBooks would be neck and neck with the current Powerbooks - we'll probably see another generation of slower FSB speeds and SDRAM.
Base - 12" iBook, 256MB SDRAM, 1GHz G3 with 1MB onboard L2, CD-ROM (DVD-ROM?), 32MB DDR ATI Radeon Mobility 9000, Airport Extreme Ready.
I wish we'd see a low end combo model, instead of CD-ROM, but I also doubt it for now. Anyway, we should sill be getting more "bang for our bucks" with the updates. Patiently awaiting...
So, you believe that the iBook will continue to ship with a 900MHz G3 until shipping G5 Powerbooks allow the iBook to use a "G4" CPU?
I've already said what I believe will happen upthread.
In the post you quoted I'm specifically talking about the myth that the G3 is "crippled" by pointing out that the current G3 - that is, the 750FX - is currently clocked as high as it can go. There is no magic that will make it go faster. As I have already said, and as I repeated in the post you quoted, I expect Apple to drop in the 750GX and run it as fast as it will go - probably 1GHz right off the line, with a bump to 1.1GHz (its absolute top speed according to IBM) as the product matures and yields improve.
That's all I'm saying: Apple is already running G3s as fast as they can go in the iBook, and they'll continue to do so until a better alternative comes along.
I've already said what I believe will happen upthread.
In the post you quoted I'm specifically talking about the myth that the G3 is "crippled" by pointing out that the current G3 - that is, the 750FX - is currently clocked as high as it can go. There is no magic that will make it go faster. As I have already said, and as I repeated in the post you quoted, I expect Apple to drop in the 750GX and run it as fast as it will go - probably 1GHz right off the line, with a bump to 1.1GHz (its absolute top speed according to IBM) as the product matures and yields improve.
That's all I'm saying: Apple is already running G3s as fast as they can go in the iBook, and they'll continue to do so until a better alternative comes along.
Ah, okay, I misunderstood your earlier post.
Apple does do certain things to the low end models that slow them down, we can either call it crippling (differentiation), or design necessities for particular price points. E.g. SDRAM vs. DDR-RAM.
Well what good is DDR ram with a 100mhz FSB? That is why they use SDRAM. At the time it was cheaper too...
Now if apple upped the FSB to 200mhz DDR would be useful.
The iBook is old tech and apple needs to replace its guts.
A 12" G3 at 800mhz in a new super slim <0.6" case would make me happy. DDR, AirEx, combo drive, tablet-like pen control. the whole 9. (800mhz because that is all i need)
If you want power... buy a powerbook... hense the name.
I'm going to wait till the new iBooks, but I've been looking at the 12" Combo drive PowerBook very closely. If you're looking for a combo drive at least, this one seems to make more sense. You get a whole lot more out of your money.
The PowerBook is $1,600, while the iBook combo drive is $1,300. And you get a much faster CPU, Airport extreme and a much smaller form factor for $300 more. Even better, the PowerBook is $1,400 with educational discount (the combo iBook is $1,200).
We'll see what the next crop of iBooks has to offer.
I wish Apple would drop the CD/ROM drive in the lowend entirely. I've got an iBook right now and I wish I were carrying a larger battery or a smaller laptop instead of a DVD/CDRW drive around with me considering how often I use it while on the go.
It would be nice if Apple sold a laptop without the internal CD/DVD drive and bundled an external Firewire drive instead. (As I'm sure they want to make their markup/revenue on the drives that they are selling; just change the cases so carrying it around is optional.)
Everything above is fine with me except that 256 MB as 'base' memory is not possible [if what you mean by base memory is the one that comes 'soldered' to the mother board].
The max memory supported by a G3 is 640 MB. And if you have 256 MB soldered, all you can do to get to the max is a 384 MB card in the additional slot and you know mem only comes in 128, 256 and 512 etc configurations...
That's one reason whenever you order 256 MB, you get 128 MB soldered and 128 MB in the additional slot.
Anyways, I just can't wait to see the new iBooks!!
Not true. The G3 Blue & White supports up to 1GB, and so does even the late '99 iMacs.
Apple is the only major computer maker still using PC133/100 SDRAM with FSB of 100 Mhz. Come on already! eMac could use an update too.
What do you do with your computer that you even notice the difference between PC133/100 SDRAM compared to newer/faster DDR SDRAM chips?
I've worked with a lot of different computers (both PC and Macs) over the years. Serious performance boosts (the kind that result in speed that you actually notice while running various apps) always seems to come from faster processors, larger/faster cache, faster hard drives, faster CD/DVD drives, faster interfaces (firewire vs. serial cables or dial-up vs. ethernet for example), improved OS, and improved video/graphics cards.
Given two identical computers, one with "fast" 333MHz DDR SDRAM, the other with "slow" 133/100MHz SDRAM, I doubt any computer user would be able to tell the difference in speed using average apps like web browsers, word processors, cd-burning software, Photoshop, or even music/video editing apps.
You must be running some serious system-taxing software on your Mac to be complaining about the speed of the SDRAM.
Don't get me wrong. Eventually the SDRAM will become a bottleneck that has to be increased in order to increase performance, but I think the rest of the hardware and software in our computers have a way to go before the SDRAM starts slowing down performance in any practical way. There are far too many other bottlenecks that have a more obvious effect in terms of speed.
Well I think we will see the 7457 at 1ghz in the iBook before the PB goes G5. I would like to see Apple move the iBook to 13" and a slightly higher resolution screen. As far as rom drives go, it is quite clear that the price difference between DVD-R and CD-R drives is dissapearing. Apple may soon have no choice but to offer DVD-R in the top-end iBook. In any event I don't see price as an issue DVD-R drives are down to $120 retail and for someone like Apple the OEM price has to be down to $80 by now, how much will they save by offering a CD-R or combo drive?
Don't get me wrong. Eventually the SDRAM will become a bottleneck that has to be increased in order to increase performance, but I think the rest of the hardware and software in our computers have a way to go before the SDRAM starts slowing down performance in any practical way. There are far too many other bottlenecks that have a more obvious effect in terms of speed.
RD, I agree with you 100%. I am not complaining about the RAM speed per se but really the overall system - a slow CPU with a slow FSB and a slow memoory and a slow HD (not Apple's fault - all laptops use slower HD) makes for a slow system.
However, at least Apple is doing something right by having decent GPUs in its laptops. Nothing cringes me more than seeing a fast PC laptop (in terms of CPU, chipset, etc) and then uses shared memory for cideo.
RD, I agree with you 100%. I am not complaining about the RAM speed per se but really the overall system - a slow CPU with a slow FSB and a slow memory and a slow HD (not Apple's fault - all laptops use slower HD) makes for a slow system.
However, at least Apple is doing something right by having decent GPUs in its laptops. Nothing cringes me more than seeing a fast PC laptop (in terms of CPU, chipset, etc) and then uses shared memory for cideo.
I am looking forward to Panther's release later this year. I think a lot of people are going to be amazed to see the speed of "old" sub-1GHz G3 and G4 processors running Panther compared to 2+GHz P4s running XP. My old 500MHz Pismo (with 1GB of SDRAM and 5400rpm HD) won't blow away a new ThinkPad, but with Panther I can certainly give a newer PC a run for the money in most practical applications like web browsers, quicktime, cd-burning, and even Photoshop.
As I mentioned in my last post, OS does indeed have an effect on your computer's performance ... much more than most people realize. I think a lot of current Mac users are going to feel like they received a processor upgrade after they install Panther.
Also, I forgot to mention the new G5s do have new DDR SDRAM (333MHz and 400MHz). But that's only because the new G5s have removed most of the other bottlenecks, and one of the only bottlenecks left was the SDRAM.
I think the new PowerPC 750GX chip will run MUCH faster than the current 750FX in the iBooks, but even then I think the iBook needs several other upgrades before you'll start to notice the difference in SDRAM speed. So if Apple puts 333MHz DDR SDRAM into the next iBook, it will probably be a waste of money and more of a marketing move (so that more specs match PCs) than a practical one.
What do you do with your computer that you even notice the difference between PC133/100 SDRAM compared to newer/faster DDR SDRAM chips?
...
Given two identical computers, one with "fast" 333MHz DDR SDRAM, the other with "slow" 133/100MHz SDRAM, I doubt any computer user would be able to tell the difference in speed using average apps like web browsers, word processors, cd-burning software, Photoshop, or even music/video editing apps.
You must be running some serious system-taxing software on your Mac to be complaining about the speed of the SDRAM.
Don't get me wrong. Eventually the SDRAM will become a bottleneck that has to be increased in order to increase performance, but I think the rest of the hardware and software in our computers have a way to go before the SDRAM starts slowing down performance in any practical way. There are far too many other bottlenecks that have a more obvious effect in terms of speed.
SDRAM became the bottleneck 3 years ago, why else do you think Rambus and DDR memory was conceptualized? You are correct in stating that other bottlenecks in system design are important, however, there are very good reasons for DDR.
Specifically, bandwidth. SDRAM hit the wall at 133MHz. As you can see in the links below, 133 MHz SDRAM topped out at under 1GBps bandwidth, DDR400 is rated at closer to 6.5GBps. The introduction of DDR technology immediately doubled the speed of RAM. I'm sure that you can understand why 2x better would be good.
You can have the fastest CPU in the world, and it will be hypothetically as fast in actually accomplishing a task as a three year old CPU - if it is starved for bandwidth. Why do you think video cards use DDR? 3D rendering is bandwidth hungry.
It's also worth noting that you contradict yourself in your post. Photoshop is probably the single best example of what your RAM size and performance will do to impact the usability of the application. Photoshop is by no means an "average" app.
I'm not intending this post as a flame, but it is wrong to essentially state that we do not need DDR in a computer. It's also worth noting that DDR is either the same cost or cheaper than singled speed SDRAM at this point in time. Moving the iBook from SDRAM to DDR (even a low speed variant) would probably result immediately in a 20% speed increase.
It would also further blur the line between the iBook and the 12" powerbook. Apple doesn't want that. So it probably wont happen until either the 12" powerbook moves to PC2700 or PC3200 ram.
Comments
Originally posted by Aquatic
They should really let the G3 go faster then the G4, enough of this crippling crap. If they have it they should sell it. 1.25 ghz G3 let them go! And they need to go back to the other "gloss" ibook design or get a new one. The current ones look like crap.
If the IBM G3 variant can hit 1.1GHz, Apple will almost certainly ship it. This wouldn't be the first time that an iBook was actually clocked faster than a Powerbook model (i.e. 900MHz G3 vs. 837MHz G4).
Only reason it might not happen is if the new G3 is a little too good.
Originally posted by Aquatic
They should really let the G3 go faster then the G4, enough of this crippling crap.
This myth must die.
The 900MHz 750FX G3 in the iBooks has the highest clock speed the fastest G3 currently in production will ever reach. When Apple puts in the 750GX it too will be running just as fast as its little 5 stage pipeline can carry it.
Nobody is crippling the G3. The idea that it can somehow scale up past the G4 completely ignores its design, its design goals and its intended market.
Originally posted by Amorph
This myth must die.
The 900MHz 750FX G3 in the iBooks has the highest clock speed the fastest G3 currently in production will ever reach. When Apple puts in the 750GX it too will be running just as fast as its little 5 stage pipeline can carry it.
Nobody is crippling the G3. The idea that it can somehow scale up past the G4 completely ignores its design, its design goals and its intended market.
So, you believe that the iBook will continue to ship with a 900MHz G3 until shipping G5 Powerbooks allow the iBook to use a "G4" CPU?
http://www-3.ibm.com/chips/products/...ductfocus.html
The 750GX has moderately higher power consumption specs, is pin compatible with the 750FX, and scheduled for production by December 2003. Sampling of the chip in summer 2003 would probably give Apple engineers enough time to design the "new" iBook specs (refresh) for fall 2003 launch.
I for one doubt that Apple will allow the iBook to languish until mid/late 2004, particularly given a history of bi-annual model updates. New models will probably have 1GHz G3 for base model and 1.1 GHz for "top end" model.
Keep in mind that clocked CPU speed doesn't necessarily mean that the new iBooks would be neck and neck with the current Powerbooks - we'll probably see another generation of slower FSB speeds and SDRAM.
Base - 12" iBook, 256MB SDRAM, 1GHz G3 with 1MB onboard L2, CD-ROM (DVD-ROM?), 32MB DDR ATI Radeon Mobility 9000, Airport Extreme Ready.
Mid - 12" iBook, 256MB SDRAM, 1.1GHz G3 with 1MB onboard L2, Combo Drive, 32 MB DDR ATI Radeon Mobility 9000, Airport Extreme Ready.
etc.
I wish we'd see a low end combo model, instead of CD-ROM, but I also doubt it for now. Anyway, we should sill be getting more "bang for our bucks" with the updates. Patiently awaiting...
Originally posted by Chagi
So, you believe that the iBook will continue to ship with a 900MHz G3 until shipping G5 Powerbooks allow the iBook to use a "G4" CPU?
I've already said what I believe will happen upthread.
In the post you quoted I'm specifically talking about the myth that the G3 is "crippled" by pointing out that the current G3 - that is, the 750FX - is currently clocked as high as it can go. There is no magic that will make it go faster. As I have already said, and as I repeated in the post you quoted, I expect Apple to drop in the 750GX and run it as fast as it will go - probably 1GHz right off the line, with a bump to 1.1GHz (its absolute top speed according to IBM) as the product matures and yields improve.
That's all I'm saying: Apple is already running G3s as fast as they can go in the iBook, and they'll continue to do so until a better alternative comes along.
Originally posted by Amorph
I've already said what I believe will happen upthread.
In the post you quoted I'm specifically talking about the myth that the G3 is "crippled" by pointing out that the current G3 - that is, the 750FX - is currently clocked as high as it can go. There is no magic that will make it go faster. As I have already said, and as I repeated in the post you quoted, I expect Apple to drop in the 750GX and run it as fast as it will go - probably 1GHz right off the line, with a bump to 1.1GHz (its absolute top speed according to IBM) as the product matures and yields improve.
That's all I'm saying: Apple is already running G3s as fast as they can go in the iBook, and they'll continue to do so until a better alternative comes along.
Ah, okay, I misunderstood your earlier post.
Apple does do certain things to the low end models that slow them down, we can either call it crippling (differentiation), or design necessities for particular price points. E.g. SDRAM vs. DDR-RAM.
Now if apple upped the FSB to 200mhz DDR would be useful.
The iBook is old tech and apple needs to replace its guts.
A 12" G3 at 800mhz in a new super slim <0.6" case would make me happy. DDR, AirEx, combo drive, tablet-like pen control. the whole 9. (800mhz because that is all i need)
If you want power... buy a powerbook... hense the name.
The PowerBook is $1,600, while the iBook combo drive is $1,300. And you get a much faster CPU, Airport extreme and a much smaller form factor for $300 more. Even better, the PowerBook is $1,400 with educational discount (the combo iBook is $1,200).
We'll see what the next crop of iBooks has to offer.
It would be nice if Apple sold a laptop without the internal CD/DVD drive and bundled an external Firewire drive instead. (As I'm sure they want to make their markup/revenue on the drives that they are selling; just change the cases so carrying it around is optional.)
Originally posted by iEatMyHomeWork
Everything above is fine with me except that 256 MB as 'base' memory is not possible [if what you mean by base memory is the one that comes 'soldered' to the mother board].
The max memory supported by a G3 is 640 MB. And if you have 256 MB soldered, all you can do to get to the max is a 384 MB card in the additional slot and you know mem only comes in 128, 256 and 512 etc configurations...
That's one reason whenever you order 256 MB, you get 128 MB soldered and 128 MB in the additional slot.
Anyways, I just can't wait to see the new iBooks!!
Not true. The G3 Blue & White supports up to 1GB, and so does even the late '99 iMacs.
Originally posted by klinux
Apple is the only major computer maker still using PC133/100 SDRAM with FSB of 100 Mhz. Come on already! eMac could use an update too.
What do you do with your computer that you even notice the difference between PC133/100 SDRAM compared to newer/faster DDR SDRAM chips?
I've worked with a lot of different computers (both PC and Macs) over the years. Serious performance boosts (the kind that result in speed that you actually notice while running various apps) always seems to come from faster processors, larger/faster cache, faster hard drives, faster CD/DVD drives, faster interfaces (firewire vs. serial cables or dial-up vs. ethernet for example), improved OS, and improved video/graphics cards.
Given two identical computers, one with "fast" 333MHz DDR SDRAM, the other with "slow" 133/100MHz SDRAM, I doubt any computer user would be able to tell the difference in speed using average apps like web browsers, word processors, cd-burning software, Photoshop, or even music/video editing apps.
You must be running some serious system-taxing software on your Mac to be complaining about the speed of the SDRAM.
Don't get me wrong. Eventually the SDRAM will become a bottleneck that has to be increased in order to increase performance, but I think the rest of the hardware and software in our computers have a way to go before the SDRAM starts slowing down performance in any practical way. There are far too many other bottlenecks that have a more obvious effect in terms of speed.
Originally posted by rustedborg
Don't get me wrong. Eventually the SDRAM will become a bottleneck that has to be increased in order to increase performance, but I think the rest of the hardware and software in our computers have a way to go before the SDRAM starts slowing down performance in any practical way. There are far too many other bottlenecks that have a more obvious effect in terms of speed.
RD, I agree with you 100%. I am not complaining about the RAM speed per se but really the overall system - a slow CPU with a slow FSB and a slow memoory and a slow HD (not Apple's fault - all laptops use slower HD) makes for a slow system.
However, at least Apple is doing something right by having decent GPUs in its laptops. Nothing cringes me more than seeing a fast PC laptop (in terms of CPU, chipset, etc) and then uses shared memory for cideo.
Originally posted by klinux
RD, I agree with you 100%. I am not complaining about the RAM speed per se but really the overall system - a slow CPU with a slow FSB and a slow memory and a slow HD (not Apple's fault - all laptops use slower HD) makes for a slow system.
However, at least Apple is doing something right by having decent GPUs in its laptops. Nothing cringes me more than seeing a fast PC laptop (in terms of CPU, chipset, etc) and then uses shared memory for cideo.
I am looking forward to Panther's release later this year. I think a lot of people are going to be amazed to see the speed of "old" sub-1GHz G3 and G4 processors running Panther compared to 2+GHz P4s running XP. My old 500MHz Pismo (with 1GB of SDRAM and 5400rpm HD) won't blow away a new ThinkPad, but with Panther I can certainly give a newer PC a run for the money in most practical applications like web browsers, quicktime, cd-burning, and even Photoshop.
As I mentioned in my last post, OS does indeed have an effect on your computer's performance ... much more than most people realize. I think a lot of current Mac users are going to feel like they received a processor upgrade after they install Panther.
Also, I forgot to mention the new G5s do have new DDR SDRAM (333MHz and 400MHz). But that's only because the new G5s have removed most of the other bottlenecks, and one of the only bottlenecks left was the SDRAM.
I think the new PowerPC 750GX chip will run MUCH faster than the current 750FX in the iBooks, but even then I think the iBook needs several other upgrades before you'll start to notice the difference in SDRAM speed. So if Apple puts 333MHz DDR SDRAM into the next iBook, it will probably be a waste of money and more of a marketing move (so that more specs match PCs) than a practical one.
Originally posted by rustedborg
What do you do with your computer that you even notice the difference between PC133/100 SDRAM compared to newer/faster DDR SDRAM chips?
...
Given two identical computers, one with "fast" 333MHz DDR SDRAM, the other with "slow" 133/100MHz SDRAM, I doubt any computer user would be able to tell the difference in speed using average apps like web browsers, word processors, cd-burning software, Photoshop, or even music/video editing apps.
You must be running some serious system-taxing software on your Mac to be complaining about the speed of the SDRAM.
Don't get me wrong. Eventually the SDRAM will become a bottleneck that has to be increased in order to increase performance, but I think the rest of the hardware and software in our computers have a way to go before the SDRAM starts slowing down performance in any practical way. There are far too many other bottlenecks that have a more obvious effect in terms of speed.
SDRAM became the bottleneck 3 years ago, why else do you think Rambus and DDR memory was conceptualized? You are correct in stating that other bottlenecks in system design are important, however, there are very good reasons for DDR.
Specifically, bandwidth. SDRAM hit the wall at 133MHz. As you can see in the links below, 133 MHz SDRAM topped out at under 1GBps bandwidth, DDR400 is rated at closer to 6.5GBps. The introduction of DDR technology immediately doubled the speed of RAM. I'm sure that you can understand why 2x better would be good.
You can have the fastest CPU in the world, and it will be hypothetically as fast in actually accomplishing a task as a three year old CPU - if it is starved for bandwidth. Why do you think video cards use DDR? 3D rendering is bandwidth hungry.
It's also worth noting that you contradict yourself in your post. Photoshop is probably the single best example of what your RAM size and performance will do to impact the usability of the application. Photoshop is by no means an "average" app.
I'm not intending this post as a flame, but it is wrong to essentially state that we do not need DDR in a computer. It's also worth noting that DDR is either the same cost or cheaper than singled speed SDRAM at this point in time. Moving the iBook from SDRAM to DDR (even a low speed variant) would probably result immediately in a 20% speed increase.
http://www.tomshardware.com/motherbo...217/index.html
http://www.oempcworld.com/generic65.html
http://www.skeeterbytes.com/pc/ddr.htm