a speedbump without actually offering a realistic speedbump. apple makes buyers wow about the fact the ibook also reached the 1Ghz line. a speedbump of 100Mhz over last springs 900Mhz G3. but this will actually cannibalise sales of the powerbook 12" and the 933Mhz ibook version if it was priced as low as, say $1399.00. so what apple is saying: if you really want more power: buy a powerbook for $100,00 more or pay for it dearly.
the 14" case of the 933Mhz and 1Ghz G4 ibook is there for a reason: heat. next update sports: a 7447 G4 @ 1Ghz and maybe a little beyond
OK, psychology, that's clear. But two things:
1) I don't think you can really compare the 900Mhz G3 with a 800 or 933 Mhz G4. I would expect even the 800Mhz G4 to be faster than the G3.
2) Curious about performance tho. . . . what speed difference will that 67Mhz actually make?
"The L2 cache memory is only 256 KB, as compared to the 512 on PowerBooks. Therefore the CPUs used are PPC7455 as in former PowerBook models(and not the new 7457 unit). So the 1GHz iBook will undoubtedly be slower than a PowerBook running at the same frequency."
Why do you guys assume that the ommission of Altivec/Velocity Engine from the specs is a web monkey error yet you don't conversely suspect that the -inclusion- of Altivec/Velocity Engine on the students page could be a web monkey error? Content is seldom written from scratch and a template tweaking error is just as likely.
I'm making no arguments pro or con, I just don't think that 2 sources in this case is enough to warrant a final determination on the subject.
Yes, the arguments made prior are valid reasons why Apple wouldn't leave it out, but not proof.
The lack of mention of the velocity engine could be a promotion tool for the pushing of powerbooks to people who need the velocity engine; to help max out sales of available inventory. Doesn't mean that it doesn't have it. Just a theory.
No G3 exists that meets the description of the chip in the iBook (1GHz, 256k L2).
One Mot G4 exists that meets that description.
Apple has consistently referred to Motorola's 74xx series as 'G4' and IBM's 750 series as 'G3'. For years. Through multiple redesigns of both architectures.
AltiVec is not something that you can bolt on or take off like an L3 cache. It's either designed into the CPU die and the scheduler and the caches, etc., or it's not. If IBM had released a G3+AltiVec we'd have heard of it at the last MPF. We didn't. If Mot had released a G4 minus AltiVec (a G3, basically) we'd have heard of it, too.
The most straightforward conclusion is that whatever's on the web page, a G4 means a Motorola 74xx part, like it's always meant, and so it has AltiVec, like every 74xx part has had.
We'll know for sure soon enough, but frankly I can't believe this has become as much of an issue as it has. It's not in the interest of the marketing department to muddy the meaning of the 'G4' brand after 4 years of perfect clarity.
I still do not understand why the mac web went absolutely NUTS here and for no reason whatsoever decided to start questioning whether or not the iBook was a "real" G4. Was it that surprising? Did people not believe that MacRumors, AppleInsider and NMR could be wrong? Well, I'm sorry folks, but if the rumor sites and Apple say two different things about an announced product, Apple is right.
So, tell me, all of you that decided to jump on this paranoid bandwagon: why? Did Apple abuse you or something when you were young such that you no longer trust them to call a G4 a G4 and a G3 a G3?
"The L2 cache memory is only 256 KB, as compared to the 512 on PowerBooks. Therefore the CPUs used are PPC7455 as in former PowerBook models(and not the new 7457 unit). So the 1GHz iBook will undoubtedly be slower than a PowerBook running at the same frequency."
it seems to be a PPC7455 not a 7445
There is a great difference between a G3 design and a G4 design : it's the mobo and the system bus. The G3 has the old protocol, and the G4 (excepted the yikes) the MPX protocol wich was a huge improvement at the times.
In term of memory performance the MPX bus is three times faster than the G3 bus (according to Apple when they released the sawtooth design).
Add DDR memory who help for I/O stuff, and you will understand why the i book G4 won't be slower than the previous ones.
"The L2 cache memory is only 256 KB, as compared to the 512 on PowerBooks. Therefore the CPUs used are PPC7455 as in former PowerBook models(and not the new 7457 unit). So the 1GHz iBook will undoubtedly be slower than a PowerBook running at the same frequency."
it seems to be a PPC7455 not a 7445
That's no evidence that it's a 7455, they're just guessing and being sloppy about it! The 7455 and 7445 are identical except for the fact that the '45 has no support for L3, both have exactly the same amount of L2 (256KB). It was the 7445 that was used in the first PB12, and it is also used here for a two reasons. First, it's cheaper than the '55 -- no point paying for L3 support you're no using, nor ever going to use. Second, it's smaller and cooler than the '55 -- both good things, if you don't need L3, and we already know that iBooks don't use it, and won't unless Powerbooks move on to some substantially faster CPUs.
It's still a .18u chip, and Apple will have had to work hard to keep heat under control, the L3 vs die-size/heat/cost equation virtually guarantees that this is a 7445 CPU, NOT the 7455. However, if I'm wrong JYD will fellate himself live in iChat AV.
Header on iBook page has been updated and now reads:
"The world?s best-loved consumer portable gets an impressive makeover with a superfast PowerPC G4 processor with Velocity Engine, a new architecture, a slot-loading optical drive and enhanced wireless networking capabilities. Plus Mac OS X v10.3 Panther, the world?s most advanced operating system. Starting at just $1099."
Yeah its too bad they under spec'd the 12 inch one....
The 12 inch sells supposedly twice to 3x times faster from what I hear from my friends at fry's and CompUSA, for the only sake as because of its size.
sides the both have the same resolution... you're only getting one stretched out, and one not. What I hate on the 14 is if you've ever worked in one, say like looking at a pdf at actual size, on the 14 you have to make it like 75% or so to see it as close to possible to its real physical size... which is stupid
**** Damnit Matsu, I clap along with the crowd when you do your price dance just like everyone else, but get off your vendetta against the iBook 12" !!! *****
WTF? Why is it so important to your ego to constantly bash the 12" computer and vehemently lobby for it to be phased out at every opportunity? Everytime you lob this idea in here you get into an argument with about 5 students and people who try to explain to you there are folks in the world who don't want to have to lug around a 14" computer because they don't have the bucks for a powerbook. It has been demonstrated time and time again that there is a huge market out there for people who think that small is beautiful. And with the monitor spanning hack these are really great work computers for 2D folks. You're not suggesting that Apple disable this feature further out of spite are you?
I do have friends who have the 14" because they like the big screen, but everyone I know personally under 30 years of age has bought the 12" and it's not because of the price. In fact, this is about the cutest little piece of seductive hardware that apple has out there (iPods excluded) for non-techie types and non-powerusers. Funny how "cute", "portable" and "cheap" are all things that young people want. Just like old people need a big screen. Different demographics, different products, mmkay?
I completely agree with you that these are the entry level laptop and need to be as cheap as possible and need not be so powerful, but why keep up this active ignorance about the fact that there is a place for this form factor without it being either a)totally crippled or b)expensive (Pb 12")? You are really getting a bit tedious...
I agree with 90% of what you post, and agree that one model of iBook should be left behind in features in order to keep lowering the price, but there is also a place for a well spec'ed smaller version that would appeal to the kids who want a small computer with modern technology and yet can't justify $500 more for Pb. How else do you hit the price/performance sweet spot that moderately informed young people buy in? If the Pb 12" is your solution to the portability concerns - who is disregarding price now?
I love you man but everytime the title of the thread has the word "iBook" in it I know you are about to whip out the soapbox to catechize yet again that one of the best loved apple machines should be killed off, and I wish you would spend your energy elsewhere.
You've almost convinced me about the importance of the 12" iBook, but...
It must be predicated on the machine being cheap (prepare pricing dance for future deployment). They could stick with a 12" bottom end, but to really drive the price down, it's going to have to stick with proportionally slower CPUs, smaller HDDs and weaker video. 1099 is a good entry, but the pressure is on. There aren't a lot of portable options that cost less that are actually worth buying, but there are a few and by next year there will be plenty. 799-899 is a mark worth striving for, even if the machine is proportionally slower.
Basically, the arguments you make amount to a niche -- the budget conscious mac road warrior. Niches are nice, but they can be the undoing of a company like Apple. Apple needs to attack the major markets, in laptops that means BIG SCREEN CONSUMER MACHINES. It makes sense.
This kind of buyer will not accessorize the machine with an external desktop set-up. They want one machine to do everything! And they want a big screen that they can view comfortably as their main desktop and mobile display, without a Dual Display setup. The iBook 12" excels as a secondary mac, and is a good primary machine in a pinch, though the lack of spanning hurts it. I don't trust the hack. Apple, however, should not make the assinine manouver of crippling machines to upsell buyers. The high end should sell itself on its own merits -- the PB's will move ahead significantly within the next 12 months and this problem will go away, Apple should just enable the spanning by then, or at the very least, provide a docked (closed lid) mode that lets you drive a higher res external display. But I digest...
It's as simple as matching the competition and competing on features. The people on these boards are atypical buyers, they have their own rationale that doesn't really match the behavior of the average consumer. Apple has read the trends and taken appropriate action.
The 14 is definitely the best consumer laptop option. The 12 is a great budget, budget-traveler option, but it doesn't make the same argument for itslef as an "primary machine" that the 14 does. So, yeah, it should continue, but they need to drive the price of it down, since it will always be a better secondary computer than a primary machine for the majority of consumers/students.
I'd still look for a widescreen replacement to oust both these models once the PB's move on to their G5 future (at least a year)
Ideally, Apple could build the mobo/case combination around a degree of modularity and just offer the same spec in your choice of either 12 or 14" model. If the 14" models are not artificially overpriced, they will outsell the 12" models even in such a scenario. But because Apple has inventory control issues to manage, we may not see such a scenario, they will instead opt for the model with the most potential, and that is the larger screen affordable machine. Most consumers will be happy.
Why must everyone make the G4 thing so complex. Thank god Apple has upgraded the tech specs.
It seems obvious to me, when you had a choice of two different families of processor it was necessary ( in the eyes of marketing ) to really sell the difference.
With the G3 gone from the lineup there is no need to talk about altivec - everyone has it.
I would have expected references to it to disappear as tech specs got updated.
"The L2 cache memory is only 256 KB, as compared to the 512 on PowerBooks. Therefore the CPUs used are PPC7455 as in former PowerBook models(and not the new 7457 unit). So the 1GHz iBook will undoubtedly be slower than a PowerBook running at the same frequency."
it seems to be a PPC7455 not a 7445
It's just a quote, day-um. As far as evidence that it's a 7455 ask the refrence poster mailto:Ewok
Comments
Originally posted by gar
it's magic and called psychology.
a speedbump without actually offering a realistic speedbump. apple makes buyers wow about the fact the ibook also reached the 1Ghz line. a speedbump of 100Mhz over last springs 900Mhz G3. but this will actually cannibalise sales of the powerbook 12" and the 933Mhz ibook version if it was priced as low as, say $1399.00. so what apple is saying: if you really want more power: buy a powerbook for $100,00 more or pay for it dearly.
the 14" case of the 933Mhz and 1Ghz G4 ibook is there for a reason: heat. next update sports: a 7447 G4 @ 1Ghz and maybe a little beyond
OK, psychology, that's clear. But two things:
1) I don't think you can really compare the 900Mhz G3 with a 800 or 933 Mhz G4. I would expect even the 800Mhz G4 to be faster than the G3.
2) Curious about performance tho. . . . what speed difference will that 67Mhz actually make?
Cheers
Originally posted by Matsu
It's the 7445, as featured in the first 12" PB, probably most of the same motherboard too.
I agree with you, Anders, no way that it would be anything less than an altivec enabled PPC, for all the reasons you mention.
From http://www.hardmac.com/niouzcontenu....2003-10-22#860
"The L2 cache memory is only 256 KB, as compared to the 512 on PowerBooks. Therefore the CPUs used are PPC7455 as in former PowerBook models(and not the new 7457 unit). So the 1GHz iBook will undoubtedly be slower than a PowerBook running at the same frequency."
it seems to be a PPC7455 not a 7445
I'm making no arguments pro or con, I just don't think that 2 sources in this case is enough to warrant a final determination on the subject.
Yes, the arguments made prior are valid reasons why Apple wouldn't leave it out, but not proof.
One Mot G4 exists that meets that description.
Apple has consistently referred to Motorola's 74xx series as 'G4' and IBM's 750 series as 'G3'. For years. Through multiple redesigns of both architectures.
AltiVec is not something that you can bolt on or take off like an L3 cache. It's either designed into the CPU die and the scheduler and the caches, etc., or it's not. If IBM had released a G3+AltiVec we'd have heard of it at the last MPF. We didn't. If Mot had released a G4 minus AltiVec (a G3, basically) we'd have heard of it, too.
The most straightforward conclusion is that whatever's on the web page, a G4 means a Motorola 74xx part, like it's always meant, and so it has AltiVec, like every 74xx part has had.
We'll know for sure soon enough, but frankly I can't believe this has become as much of an issue as it has. It's not in the interest of the marketing department to muddy the meaning of the 'G4' brand after 4 years of perfect clarity.
So, tell me, all of you that decided to jump on this paranoid bandwagon: why? Did Apple abuse you or something when you were young such that you no longer trust them to call a G4 a G4 and a G3 a G3?
Originally posted by AlPanther
From http://www.hardmac.com/niouzcontenu....2003-10-22#860
"The L2 cache memory is only 256 KB, as compared to the 512 on PowerBooks. Therefore the CPUs used are PPC7455 as in former PowerBook models(and not the new 7457 unit). So the 1GHz iBook will undoubtedly be slower than a PowerBook running at the same frequency."
it seems to be a PPC7455 not a 7445
There is a great difference between a G3 design and a G4 design : it's the mobo and the system bus. The G3 has the old protocol, and the G4 (excepted the yikes) the MPX protocol wich was a huge improvement at the times.
In term of memory performance the MPX bus is three times faster than the G3 bus (according to Apple when they released the sawtooth design).
Add DDR memory who help for I/O stuff, and you will understand why the i book G4 won't be slower than the previous ones.
Originally posted by AlPanther
From http://www.hardmac.com/niouzcontenu....2003-10-22#860
"The L2 cache memory is only 256 KB, as compared to the 512 on PowerBooks. Therefore the CPUs used are PPC7455 as in former PowerBook models(and not the new 7457 unit). So the 1GHz iBook will undoubtedly be slower than a PowerBook running at the same frequency."
it seems to be a PPC7455 not a 7445
That's no evidence that it's a 7455, they're just guessing and being sloppy about it! The 7455 and 7445 are identical except for the fact that the '45 has no support for L3, both have exactly the same amount of L2 (256KB). It was the 7445 that was used in the first PB12, and it is also used here for a two reasons. First, it's cheaper than the '55 -- no point paying for L3 support you're no using, nor ever going to use. Second, it's smaller and cooler than the '55 -- both good things, if you don't need L3, and we already know that iBooks don't use it, and won't unless Powerbooks move on to some substantially faster CPUs.
It's still a .18u chip, and Apple will have had to work hard to keep heat under control, the L3 vs die-size/heat/cost equation virtually guarantees that this is a 7445 CPU, NOT the 7455. However, if I'm wrong JYD will fellate himself live in iChat AV.
"The world?s best-loved consumer portable gets an impressive makeover with a superfast PowerPC G4 processor with Velocity Engine, a new architecture, a slot-loading optical drive and enhanced wireless networking capabilities. Plus Mac OS X v10.3 Panther, the world?s most advanced operating system. Starting at just $1099."
The 12 inch sells supposedly twice to 3x times faster from what I hear from my friends at fry's and CompUSA, for the only sake as because of its size.
sides the both have the same resolution... you're only getting one stretched out, and one not. What I hate on the 14 is if you've ever worked in one, say like looking at a pdf at actual size, on the 14 you have to make it like 75% or so to see it as close to possible to its real physical size... which is stupid
LONG LIVE THE 12NCH
Originally posted by Curufinwe
**** Damnit Matsu, I clap along with the crowd when you do your price dance just like everyone else, but get off your vendetta against the iBook 12" !!! *****
WTF? Why is it so important to your ego to constantly bash the 12" computer and vehemently lobby for it to be phased out at every opportunity? Everytime you lob this idea in here you get into an argument with about 5 students and people who try to explain to you there are folks in the world who don't want to have to lug around a 14" computer because they don't have the bucks for a powerbook. It has been demonstrated time and time again that there is a huge market out there for people who think that small is beautiful. And with the monitor spanning hack these are really great work computers for 2D folks. You're not suggesting that Apple disable this feature further out of spite are you?
I do have friends who have the 14" because they like the big screen, but everyone I know personally under 30 years of age has bought the 12" and it's not because of the price. In fact, this is about the cutest little piece of seductive hardware that apple has out there (iPods excluded) for non-techie types and non-powerusers. Funny how "cute", "portable" and "cheap" are all things that young people want. Just like old people need a big screen. Different demographics, different products, mmkay?
I completely agree with you that these are the entry level laptop and need to be as cheap as possible and need not be so powerful, but why keep up this active ignorance about the fact that there is a place for this form factor without it being either a)totally crippled or b)expensive (Pb 12")? You are really getting a bit tedious...
I agree with 90% of what you post, and agree that one model of iBook should be left behind in features in order to keep lowering the price, but there is also a place for a well spec'ed smaller version that would appeal to the kids who want a small computer with modern technology and yet can't justify $500 more for Pb. How else do you hit the price/performance sweet spot that moderately informed young people buy in? If the Pb 12" is your solution to the portability concerns - who is disregarding price now?
I love you man but everytime the title of the thread has the word "iBook" in it I know you are about to whip out the soapbox to catechize yet again that one of the best loved apple machines should be killed off, and I wish you would spend your energy elsewhere.
You've almost convinced me about the importance of the 12" iBook, but...
It must be predicated on the machine being cheap (prepare pricing dance
Basically, the arguments you make amount to a niche -- the budget conscious mac road warrior. Niches are nice, but they can be the undoing of a company like Apple. Apple needs to attack the major markets, in laptops that means BIG SCREEN CONSUMER MACHINES. It makes sense.
This kind of buyer will not accessorize the machine with an external desktop set-up. They want one machine to do everything! And they want a big screen that they can view comfortably as their main desktop and mobile display, without a Dual Display setup. The iBook 12" excels as a secondary mac, and is a good primary machine in a pinch, though the lack of spanning hurts it. I don't trust the hack. Apple, however, should not make the assinine manouver of crippling machines to upsell buyers. The high end should sell itself on its own merits -- the PB's will move ahead significantly within the next 12 months and this problem will go away, Apple should just enable the spanning by then, or at the very least, provide a docked (closed lid) mode that lets you drive a higher res external display. But I digest...
It's as simple as matching the competition and competing on features. The people on these boards are atypical buyers, they have their own rationale that doesn't really match the behavior of the average consumer. Apple has read the trends and taken appropriate action.
The 14 is definitely the best consumer laptop option. The 12 is a great budget, budget-traveler option, but it doesn't make the same argument for itslef as an "primary machine" that the 14 does. So, yeah, it should continue, but they need to drive the price of it down, since it will always be a better secondary computer than a primary machine for the majority of consumers/students.
I'd still look for a widescreen replacement to oust both these models once the PB's move on to their G5 future (at least a year)
Ideally, Apple could build the mobo/case combination around a degree of modularity and just offer the same spec in your choice of either 12 or 14" model. If the 14" models are not artificially overpriced, they will outsell the 12" models even in such a scenario. But because Apple has inventory control issues to manage, we may not see such a scenario, they will instead opt for the model with the most potential, and that is the larger screen affordable machine. Most consumers will be happy.
Originally posted by Matsu
But I digest...
edit: wow, I see I've lost post count.
Originally posted by Akumulator
edit: wow, I see I've lost post count.
me too. i had 404 (last time i looked at it, yesterday, about 3 posts earlier/
It seems obvious to me, when you had a choice of two different families of processor it was necessary ( in the eyes of marketing ) to really sell the difference.
With the G3 gone from the lineup there is no need to talk about altivec - everyone has it.
I would have expected references to it to disappear as tech specs got updated.
Originally posted by AlPanther
From http://www.hardmac.com/niouzcontenu....2003-10-22#860
"The L2 cache memory is only 256 KB, as compared to the 512 on PowerBooks. Therefore the CPUs used are PPC7455 as in former PowerBook models(and not the new 7457 unit). So the 1GHz iBook will undoubtedly be slower than a PowerBook running at the same frequency."
it seems to be a PPC7455 not a 7445
It's just a quote, day-um.
http://ladd.dyndns.org/xbench/merge....473&doc2=39531
hmm interesting....
heheh found the link somewhere else, but blowed if I can find that machine listed anywhere