Regarding battery life, I don't think it's really a problem. Take a look at the latest 15-inch PowerBook, for example. Some say battery life is pathetic. Well, the Dell Inspiron 8600 is using a 72-watt hour batt. The 15-inch PowerBook? A 46-watt hour battery. The last Titanium used a 61-watt hour battery. The problem of battery life, in my opinion, is easily solved if Apple so chooses.
As for the speed of the PowerBook's processor, Apple needs to get something going - and it better not think dual processor G4s are the answer. I still want to have children.
While I certainly agree about the style and the finishing touches, I'm not so sure about the «G4 is competitive to Centrino» bit. I just read a review of the admittedly sensationally ugly Benq Joybook 5000,
I bought exactly this machine three weeks ago, and in most aspects, it is very good (not aesthetics, I dubbed it "the ugly duckling" because it is easily the most ugly notebook I have ever seen). Battery life is easily 5h, the screen is super bright if somewhat blueish. It is a great machine for Java development, web stuff and light to medium photoshop.
On the negative, the fan comes on rather quickly, about 1 sec of full CPU load and it will run for 5 secs. This is a bit annoying, since every compiler run will trigger this (even launching big apps does).
It is noch much larger, thicker or heavier than a Powerbook and costs about 50% of one.
I still keep my mail on my old Tibook, but I won't buy another Powerbook until Apple is able to produce something that outperforms this cheap box.
The screen resolutions actually makes sense (resolution crazed spec whores can go suck a fat one, Apple is right on this and you're acting like a bunch of retards)
I've explained it many times already -- do a search, I'm tired. We're not ready for resolution independence yet. Those 1600 plus widths are not practical or even useful on small screens. Actually, they unhealthy. Apple's looking after you, be happy, not stupid.
It's RapidIO, whose bandwidth is comparable to HyperTransport. ... It wouldn't quite be the 970's bus, but it would also be cool and inexpensive enough to thrive in notebooks and iMacs
You weren't clear in answering this question Amorph. The Moto 85x0 series has an on-die memory controller that supports PC2700 memory. That is, it has a double data rate 167 MHz bus or a 333 MHz data rate memory bus. It has separate RapidIO channels for I/O and multiprocessor support. It (the memory/IO) is pretty much the same design as the Athlon 64. Moto will have to make mods to the CPU everytime they need to support faster memory tech (like PC3200).
The 970 and 85x0 I/O and memory buses really can't be compared, since the 970 uses its one processor bus to support both memory and I/O while the 85x0 uses separate buses for memory and I/O.
Quote:
Embedded is where their strength is, and the chip I'm speculating about would be aimed squarely at the embedded market. The design would be significantly different than a 970-class CPU, with different tradeoffs and different goals. But a notebook counts as an embedded application. So does, say, a blade server.
Moto will have to create a dual-core G4 embedded processor to compete with the BCM1250, and that's what they say they are going to do, something like 1.5 GHz 20 Watt using the 7400 based core. Whether they will actually do it, I don't know, but I wouldn't expect it until 2005.
If IBM decides to enter the embedded space with 970-based designs, 2004 may be a very bad year for Moto.
I've explained it many times already -- do a search, I'm tired. We're not ready for resolution independence yet. Those 1600 plus widths are not practical or even useful on small screens. Actually, they unhealthy. Apple's looking after you, be happy, not stupid.
We appreciate the care, but that's not their responsibility. The onus is on Apple to create a product that people want to buy, and if higher resolution screens is a deciding factor to people, it's Apple's loss most of the time since people can look elsewhere.
Is it really that hard for Apple to create Build-To-Order screen resolutions?
Is it really that hard for Apple to create Build-To-Order screen resolutions?
Not for Apple, but for Steve Jobs' Ego. He knows what's best for you, remember?
Incidentally, I tend to agree with him most of the time, and lately even regarding his iron-clad will to not go above a certain resolution per inch, which is certainly easier on the eyes than some of those silly Windows ppi values. This said, it would still be nice to have the option to choose... Dreamweaver MX 04 would really love a 17" TiBook with 1600 x something resolution \
We appreciate the care, but that's not their responsibility. The onus is on Apple to create a product that people want to buy, and if higher resolution screens is a deciding factor to people, it's Apple's loss most of the time since people can look elsewhere.
That's the whole thing. Most of the time the ultra-high psychotic resolutions are a factor AGAINST buying.
I've explained it many times already -- do a search, I'm tired. We're not ready for resolution independence yet. Those 1600 plus widths are not practical or even useful on small screens. Actually, they unhealthy. Apple's looking after you, be happy, not stupid.
My native resolution is 1600x1200 on a 15 inch LCD. I wear a light prescription, but I haven't had my glasses for the last two weeks and have not had any problems. THe LCD is about 2.333 feet away from my eyes. Apple could bump the resolution up a bit and not hurt anybody.
We appreciate the care, but that's not their responsibility. The onus is on Apple to create a product that people want to buy
But people want to buy screens that look good at the resolution they prefer. Marketing being marketing, I know far too many people who got Squintronic(TM) screens on the "more is better" theory, which doesn't hold for resolution-dependent interfaces. They end up spending more for displays that look like crap under daily use, which is not presumably what they want.
"Let the customer decide" would work a lot better if there was any concerted effort to educate customers.
Stop denying it. You people who want 15-inch screens with 1600X1024 pixels are idiots. If you really need that much screen real-estate, it's time to think about buying an external monitor.
Stop denying it. You people who want 15-inch screens with 1600X1024 pixels are idiots. If you really need that much screen real-estate, it's time to think about buying an external monitor.
Stop denying it. You people who want 15-inch screens with 1600X1024 pixels are idiots. If you really need that much screen real-estate, it's time to think about buying an external monitor.
For fvcks sake, stop patronizing me. I know perfectly what I want and an external monitor is not it (because I'd need to buy three of them for work and home).
The current resolution is too coarse for me, if you believe it or not. I can clearly see the pixel boundaries and it is distracting me. If your eyes are worse, fine, but mine are able to read text on a 1440xsomething 15".
Stop being apologetic of Apples shortcomings, the one size does not fit all.
But people want to buy screens that look good at the resolution they prefer. Marketing being marketing, I know far too many people who got Squintronic(TM) screens on the "more is better" theory, which doesn't hold for resolution-dependent interfaces. They end up spending more for displays that look like crap under daily use, which is not presumably what they want.
"Let the customer decide" would work a lot better if there was any concerted effort to educate customers.
Good points. We have several Sony Vaio laptops at work that have higher resolution 15" screens, and they are very, very hard to look at, from more than 18" away. Seriously. The font is way too small and you have to increase the size of icons and fonts to get them workable. The picture becomes rather gruesome when doing this. I have to say, I am happy with my PB 1440x900 display.
That's the whole thing. Most of the time the ultra-high psychotic resolutions are a factor AGAINST buying.
If so, then the market will decide whether higher resolutions are worth it to Apple. In the PC market, they apparently are. And there are people in the Apple market that want it and will pay for it. Apple refuses to play, as they refuse to play in a multitude of other things in their product matrix, like a 3-tiered laptop offering.
I still don't get this hyper-negative attitude. All I'm asking is for build-to-order higher resolutions screens. Those who don't want it loses absolutely nothing. They even get the best performance/price since Apple BTO have hefty margins on them. I'm not even asking for anything "insane": the 15 inch Powerbook should have a 1440x960 option and the 17" should have a 1680x1120 option.
And oh yeah, people still get crazed up when I mention a 3-tier laptop offering: Powerbook G5, Powerbook G4 and iBook G4. It's probably the thought that the Powerbook G5 would be a 1.5+ inch thick laptop...
For fvcks sake, stop patronizing me. I know perfectly what I want and an external monitor is not it (because I'd need to buy three of them for work and home).
The current resolution is too coarse for me, if you believe it or not. I can clearly see the pixel boundaries and it is distracting me. If your eyes are worse, fine, but mine are able to read text on a 1440xsomething 15".
Stop being apologetic of Apples shortcomings, the one size does not fit all.
If you can see pixels on at 1280X854 and it bothers you, it's still going to bother you on a 1440X900 display. The pixels are only going to be 12% smaller. Maybe you just need to turn on heavy anti-aliasing, so your eagle eyes stop noticing the jaggies.
If you can see pixels on at 1280X854 and it bothers you, it's still going to bother you on a 1440X900 display.
Absolutely, but CRT notebooks are still some years away. So I have to use TFT till then. And no, wisecracs, I cannot use a tower and CRT, I absolutely need the mobility to work.
Quote:
The pixels are only going to be 12% smaller. Maybe you just need to turn on heavy anti-aliasing, so your eagle eyes stop noticing the jaggies.
*cough* If you have good eyes (or in my case good contacts), the fuzzyness and mushy character edges are disturbing in itself. The text looks slightly out of focus.
Apples overblown anti-aliasing ist just a cure for the inferior resolution they offer. Go to higher resolution and the pixel borders begin to fuse even with much less pronounced antialiasing. "LIght" antialiasing in MacOS X is OK but gives you color seams at the lines and edges of characters.
It *is* a tradeoff and i'd take some time thinking about whether I'd rather have 1600 or 1440 on a 15", but the current craptastic[tm] resolution is too low.
Comments
As for the speed of the PowerBook's processor, Apple needs to get something going - and it better not think dual processor G4s are the answer. I still want to have children.
Originally posted by philby
While I certainly agree about the style and the finishing touches, I'm not so sure about the «G4 is competitive to Centrino» bit. I just read a review of the admittedly sensationally ugly Benq Joybook 5000,
I bought exactly this machine three weeks ago, and in most aspects, it is very good (not aesthetics, I dubbed it "the ugly duckling" because it is easily the most ugly notebook I have ever seen). Battery life is easily 5h, the screen is super bright if somewhat blueish. It is a great machine for Java development, web stuff and light to medium photoshop.
On the negative, the fan comes on rather quickly, about 1 sec of full CPU load and it will run for 5 secs. This is a bit annoying, since every compiler run will trigger this (even launching big apps does).
It is noch much larger, thicker or heavier than a Powerbook and costs about 50% of one.
I still keep my mail on my old Tibook, but I won't buy another Powerbook until Apple is able to produce something that outperforms this cheap box.
Originally posted by Matsu
The screen resolutions actually makes sense (resolution crazed spec whores can go suck a fat one, Apple is right on this and you're acting like a bunch of retards)
Convincing argument, Matsu
This is turning into AppleOutsider lately...
Originally posted by Amorph
It's RapidIO, whose bandwidth is comparable to HyperTransport. ... It wouldn't quite be the 970's bus, but it would also be cool and inexpensive enough to thrive in notebooks and iMacs
You weren't clear in answering this question Amorph. The Moto 85x0 series has an on-die memory controller that supports PC2700 memory. That is, it has a double data rate 167 MHz bus or a 333 MHz data rate memory bus. It has separate RapidIO channels for I/O and multiprocessor support. It (the memory/IO) is pretty much the same design as the Athlon 64. Moto will have to make mods to the CPU everytime they need to support faster memory tech (like PC3200).
The 970 and 85x0 I/O and memory buses really can't be compared, since the 970 uses its one processor bus to support both memory and I/O while the 85x0 uses separate buses for memory and I/O.
Embedded is where their strength is, and the chip I'm speculating about would be aimed squarely at the embedded market. The design would be significantly different than a 970-class CPU, with different tradeoffs and different goals. But a notebook counts as an embedded application. So does, say, a blade server.
Moto will have to create a dual-core G4 embedded processor to compete with the BCM1250, and that's what they say they are going to do, something like 1.5 GHz 20 Watt using the 7400 based core. Whether they will actually do it, I don't know, but I wouldn't expect it until 2005.
If IBM decides to enter the embedded space with 970-based designs, 2004 may be a very bad year for Moto.
Originally posted by Matsu
I've explained it many times already -- do a search, I'm tired. We're not ready for resolution independence yet. Those 1600 plus widths are not practical or even useful on small screens. Actually, they unhealthy. Apple's looking after you, be happy, not stupid.
We appreciate the care, but that's not their responsibility. The onus is on Apple to create a product that people want to buy, and if higher resolution screens is a deciding factor to people, it's Apple's loss most of the time since people can look elsewhere.
Is it really that hard for Apple to create Build-To-Order screen resolutions?
Originally posted by THT
Is it really that hard for Apple to create Build-To-Order screen resolutions?
Not for Apple, but for Steve Jobs' Ego. He knows what's best for you, remember?
Incidentally, I tend to agree with him most of the time, and lately even regarding his iron-clad will to not go above a certain resolution per inch, which is certainly easier on the eyes than some of those silly Windows ppi values. This said, it would still be nice to have the option to choose... Dreamweaver MX 04 would really love a 17" TiBook with 1600 x something resolution
Originally posted by THT
We appreciate the care, but that's not their responsibility. The onus is on Apple to create a product that people want to buy, and if higher resolution screens is a deciding factor to people, it's Apple's loss most of the time since people can look elsewhere.
That's the whole thing. Most of the time the ultra-high psychotic resolutions are a factor AGAINST buying.
Originally posted by Matsu
I've explained it many times already -- do a search, I'm tired. We're not ready for resolution independence yet. Those 1600 plus widths are not practical or even useful on small screens. Actually, they unhealthy. Apple's looking after you, be happy, not stupid.
My native resolution is 1600x1200 on a 15 inch LCD. I wear a light prescription, but I haven't had my glasses for the last two weeks and have not had any problems. THe LCD is about 2.333 feet away from my eyes. Apple could bump the resolution up a bit and not hurt anybody.
Originally posted by THT
We appreciate the care, but that's not their responsibility. The onus is on Apple to create a product that people want to buy
But people want to buy screens that look good at the resolution they prefer. Marketing being marketing, I know far too many people who got Squintronic(TM) screens on the "more is better" theory, which doesn't hold for resolution-dependent interfaces. They end up spending more for displays that look like crap under daily use, which is not presumably what they want.
"Let the customer decide" would work a lot better if there was any concerted effort to educate customers.
Some say battery life is pathetic. Well, the Dell Inspiron 8600 is using a 72-watt hour batt.
Chances are it's also a bigger battery than would fit in an Apple PowerBook.
Originally posted by Kecksy
Stop denying it. You people who want 15-inch screens with 1600X1024 pixels are idiots. If you really need that much screen real-estate, it's time to think about buying an external monitor.
Here here! Finally some one said it.
Originally posted by Kecksy
Stop denying it. You people who want 15-inch screens with 1600X1024 pixels are idiots. If you really need that much screen real-estate, it's time to think about buying an external monitor.
For fvcks sake, stop patronizing me. I know perfectly what I want and an external monitor is not it (because I'd need to buy three of them for work and home).
The current resolution is too coarse for me, if you believe it or not. I can clearly see the pixel boundaries and it is distracting me. If your eyes are worse, fine, but mine are able to read text on a 1440xsomething 15".
Stop being apologetic of Apples shortcomings, the one size does not fit all.
Originally posted by Amorph
But people want to buy screens that look good at the resolution they prefer. Marketing being marketing, I know far too many people who got Squintronic(TM) screens on the "more is better" theory, which doesn't hold for resolution-dependent interfaces. They end up spending more for displays that look like crap under daily use, which is not presumably what they want.
"Let the customer decide" would work a lot better if there was any concerted effort to educate customers.
Good points. We have several Sony Vaio laptops at work that have higher resolution 15" screens, and they are very, very hard to look at, from more than 18" away. Seriously. The font is way too small and you have to increase the size of icons and fonts to get them workable. The picture becomes rather gruesome when doing this. I have to say, I am happy with my PB 1440x900 display.
Originally posted by Flounder
That's the whole thing. Most of the time the ultra-high psychotic resolutions are a factor AGAINST buying.
If so, then the market will decide whether higher resolutions are worth it to Apple. In the PC market, they apparently are. And there are people in the Apple market that want it and will pay for it. Apple refuses to play, as they refuse to play in a multitude of other things in their product matrix, like a 3-tiered laptop offering.
I still don't get this hyper-negative attitude. All I'm asking is for build-to-order higher resolutions screens. Those who don't want it loses absolutely nothing. They even get the best performance/price since Apple BTO have hefty margins on them. I'm not even asking for anything "insane": the 15 inch Powerbook should have a 1440x960 option and the 17" should have a 1680x1120 option.
And oh yeah, people still get crazed up when I mention a 3-tier laptop offering: Powerbook G5, Powerbook G4 and iBook G4. It's probably the thought that the Powerbook G5 would be a 1.5+ inch thick laptop...
Originally posted by Smircle
For fvcks sake, stop patronizing me. I know perfectly what I want and an external monitor is not it (because I'd need to buy three of them for work and home).
The current resolution is too coarse for me, if you believe it or not. I can clearly see the pixel boundaries and it is distracting me. If your eyes are worse, fine, but mine are able to read text on a 1440xsomething 15".
Stop being apologetic of Apples shortcomings, the one size does not fit all.
If you can see pixels on at 1280X854 and it bothers you, it's still going to bother you on a 1440X900 display. The pixels are only going to be 12% smaller. Maybe you just need to turn on heavy anti-aliasing, so your eagle eyes stop noticing the jaggies.
Originally posted by Kecksy
If you can see pixels on at 1280X854 and it bothers you, it's still going to bother you on a 1440X900 display.
Absolutely, but CRT notebooks are still some years away. So I have to use TFT till then. And no, wisecracs, I cannot use a tower and CRT, I absolutely need the mobility to work.
The pixels are only going to be 12% smaller. Maybe you just need to turn on heavy anti-aliasing, so your eagle eyes stop noticing the jaggies.
*cough* If you have good eyes (or in my case good contacts), the fuzzyness and mushy character edges are disturbing in itself. The text looks slightly out of focus.
Apples overblown anti-aliasing ist just a cure for the inferior resolution they offer. Go to higher resolution and the pixel borders begin to fuse even with much less pronounced antialiasing. "LIght" antialiasing in MacOS X is OK but gives you color seams at the lines and edges of characters.
It *is* a tradeoff and i'd take some time thinking about whether I'd rather have 1600 or 1440 on a 15", but the current craptastic[tm] resolution is too low.
Originally posted by Smircle
Absolutely, but CRT notebooks are still some years away. So I have to use TFT till then.
You actually think there will be CRT notebooks? I saw an article about them a few years ago. I don't think they went anywhere.
Originally posted by Luca Rescigno
You actually think there will be CRT notebooks? I saw an article about them a few years ago. I don't think they went anywhere.
Sure, they'll be known as luggable rather than portable, though