Apple enhances PowerBooks with higher-res displays

124»

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 78
    sjksjk Posts: 603member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by TenoBell

    I don't think the Intel switch will happen that quickly. I think the Intel transisiton will be pretty slow, and Apple will develop PPC for at least another year.



    "Apple Sticks with PowerPC for Now" fluffs up that opinion.
  • Reply 62 of 78
    tenobelltenobell Posts: 7,014member
    Another thing is for certain. Its obvious Freescale has gone to sleep on the G4.



    Apple needs to dump the G4 from the Mac line up - like yesterday.
  • Reply 63 of 78
    wow! what an increase in the 12" resolution, the new even faster processor....



    came on, i really hoped to get a good reason the get one. and i really doubt, there ´ll be an upgrade soon. just think how long it took them to just grap one of the myriades of display producers and ask them to supply them with a bit higher resolution and brighter screens.
  • Reply 64 of 78
    elixirelixir Posts: 782member
    i'm thinking the 12" will go 13" when the intels come out.





    hmmm.. i'm still debating



    should i wait for the intels? should i get the 15"





    i just dont know what to do.
  • Reply 65 of 78
    Quote:

    Originally posted by PB

    I doubt Apple would choose to update with minor touches here and there, like they did. They would never risk the end of the year buying season if they could. My guess is that Freescale was unable to produce the 7448 in sufficient quantities before the next year comes.



    Yes but the fact is Apple had to take their eye off the PPC ball and focus on Intel.. If there was no Intel round the corner. I think we could have guaranteed this 7448 chip in the PB. It depends who you think is ultimately responsible.. Perhaps (in the past, or when it mattered) a certain CEO would be screaming at his chip supliers every day to guarentee their prompt delivery.. Is he doing it now. ?



    Not IMHO!
  • Reply 66 of 78
    pbpb Posts: 4,242member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by OfficerDigby

    Yes but the fact is Apple had to take their eye off the PPC ball and focus on Intel.. If there was no Intel round the corner. I think we could have guaranteed this 7448 chip in the PB.





    The work for the Intel switch has little to do with Apple including the MPC7448 in the Powerbook, since the 7448 is pin-compatible with the 7447A and it would require almost zero effort to implement.



    Quote:



    It depends who you think is ultimately responsible.. Perhaps (in the past, or when it mattered) a certain CEO would be screaming at his chip supliers every day to guarentee their prompt delivery.. Is he doing it now. ?



    Not IMHO!




    Yes, pressure from Apple to obtain in time the chips could indeed be a factor. However, I am not sure if Apple would abandon that way the pressure towards Freescale, especially when they scheduled an update just before the holidays buying season.
  • Reply 67 of 78
    thttht Posts: 4,444member
    I guess I'm one of the few who is sorely tempted with the Powerbook update. The Powerbook 15" with 1440x960 screen resolution would be something I'd loved to get. My aging, falling apart 500 MHz iBook has something to do with it, though. I can't even watch the Apple webcasts anymore, it's nothing but a slideshow... but I must... hold... out... for dual-core Yonah goodness.
  • Reply 68 of 78
    sjksjk Posts: 603member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by THT

    I guess I'm one of the few who is sorely tempted with the Powerbook update. The Powerbook 15" with 1440x960 screen resolution would be something I'd loved to get. My aging, falling apart 500 MHz iBook has something to do with it, though. I can't even watch the Apple webcasts anymore, it's nothing but a slideshow... but I must... hold... out... for dual-core Yonah goodness.



    But would you really want to buy a rev. A system, especially a laptop? I'd be reluctant to replace my 600MHz iBook with one.



    Btw, I just noticed this yesterday:



    PowerBook G4 (Double-Layer SD) models: About Safe Sleep



    There's more info about Safe Sleep in this Technical Note from 1999:



    Power Manager 2.0



    I wasn't aware that feature existed for Mac OS and hardware at that time. It seems to have slipped under the radar with news about the updated PowerBooks. That would be a great feature for other Macs, especially semi-portable minis and iMacs.
  • Reply 69 of 78
    New PowerBook screen vs old PowerBook screen:



    Pictures of new Powerbook G4 with 1680x1050 display
  • Reply 70 of 78
    thanks for posting the side by side comparison, thats awesome!
  • Reply 71 of 78
    thttht Posts: 4,444member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by sjk

    But would you really want to buy a rev. A system, especially a laptop? I'd be reluctant to replace my 600MHz iBook with one.



    Well, my 500 MHz iBook G3 is a rev A system, no?



    Yes, I'm ok with get a Rev. A Powerbook/Intel.
  • Reply 72 of 78
    sjksjk Posts: 603member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by THT

    Well, my 500 MHz iBook G3 is a rev A system, no?



    Oh.



    However, the G3 was already in other Mac models before the iBook so some of the early software issues had already been resolved. The first Intel-based systems will face both new hardware and software uncertainties.



    Quote:

    Yes, I'm ok with get a Rev. A Powerbook/Intel.



    You certainly won't be alone.
  • Reply 73 of 78
    cosmonutcosmonut Posts: 4,872member
    Those high res screens are cool! I'm sure sales of reading glasses and magnifying lenses are going to skyrocket!
  • Reply 74 of 78
    Quote:

    Originally posted by TenoBell

    I don't think the Intel switch will happen that quickly. I think the Intel transisiton will be pretty slow, and Apple will develop PPC for at least another year.



    Jobs seems to be about symmetry and balance. I can see him wanting to take the entire Macintosh line to G5.



    The dual PowerMac will carry us through the next year. I wouldn't look for an Intel Power Mac until 2007.



    I really have the feeling Apple is aiming for a G5 PowerBook and iBook. This would be the significant boost to carry the laptop line through 2006 with an Intel transition in 2007.



    That may leave he Mac mini as the first computer to see the Intel transition. Or Apple may introduce a small tower as their first Intel machine.




    Well don't forget that the G4 is a woefully outdated processor no matter how you slice it, meaning that it's in Apple's best interests to dump it (as another poster said) "like yesterday".



    Whether Jobs "wants" the G5 in the PB or not, that doesn't mean it can happen. the G5 is just too hot/big for a PB.



    Also remember that the consumer line will almost certainly never be better than the pro line, which means that neither the iBook nor the MM can outclass the PB. And right now, just about anything can outclass the G4. It's time to move on.
  • Reply 75 of 78
    Quote:

    Originally posted by mynamehere

    Well don't forget that the G4 is a woefully outdated processor no matter how you slice it, meaning that it's in Apple's best interests to dump it (as another poster said) "like yesterday".



    Whether Jobs "wants" the G5 in the PB or not, that doesn't mean it can happen. the G5 is just too hot/big for a PB.



    Also remember that the consumer line will almost certainly never be better than the pro line, which means that neither the iBook nor the MM can outclass the PB. And right now, just about anything can outclass the G4. It's time to move on.




    Repeating this over and over doesn't make it true.



    The G4 is not 'woefully outdated'. It has a couple of flaws that matter to some people but not, by any stretch, to everyone. Computers have been faster than most people need for years and it's only the geeks and the gamers that worry about it.



    It still does runs vector code quicker than the Pentium M which has poor SIMD support.



    It still does floating point quicker than the Pentium M.



    It doesn't need as big a cache to keep the pipelines fed unlike Intel.



    What it doesn't do is have a fast front side bus or scale down in power to speeds quite as slow as the Pentium M. Both flaws in the G4 make it now unsuitable for the desktop and less useful in a laptop even though 5.5 hours in a laptop is probably adequate for most people.



    The problem is that it WILL be outclassed in about 4 months time by the dual-core Yonah and totally outclassed by the Merom in about a years time. And Freescale doesn't have an answer for that in their roadmap until about another 6 months after the Merom. It's anyone's guess if they actually do match Intel but if they don't then the low power Intel chips are going to start eating into Freescales embedded market too.



    The P.A. Semi announcement today though may change things again but it's still not looking good for Freescale who have squandered their lead by not investing in fabs, laying off development teams and penny pinching for years.



    IBM's low power G5s aren't really that low in power yet, but I wouldn't rule them out either. There's a lot of development going on in PowerPC still as the architecture is used in many places other than computers.



    All of which leaves Apple backing the wrong horse still for laptop chips in the immediate future and that's 54% of it's market IIRC. That's why they went Intel. Not because of what we have now, but because of what is coming.
  • Reply 76 of 78
    dh87dh87 Posts: 73member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by aegisdesign

    Repeating this over and over doesn't make it true.



    The G4 is not 'woefully outdated'. It has a couple of flaws that matter to some people but not, by any stretch, to everyone. Computers have been faster than most people need for years and it's only the geeks and the gamers that worry about it.







    If I understand this barefeats test correctly http://www.barefeats.com/kwik.html , then a 2 GHz G4 holds its own with a 2 GHz G5, tested in desktop systems. The G4 is slower in 3D graphic applications (on page 2 of the test). In a laptop with only 1 processor, I don't then understand how the frequently advocated G5, probably at 1.6 or 1.8 GHz, would be so great. A 2 GHz G4 would almost certainly be faster, and probably lower power too.
  • Reply 77 of 78
    Quote:

    Originally posted by dh87

    If I understand this barefeats test correctly http://www.barefeats.com/kwik.html , then a 2 GHz G4 holds its own with a 2 GHz G5, tested in desktop systems. The G4 is slower in 3D graphic applications (on page 2 of the test). In a laptop with only 1 processor, I don't then understand how the frequently advocated G5, probably at 1.6 or 1.8 GHz, would be so great. A 2 GHz G4 would almost certainly be faster, and probably lower power too.



    Ultimately, the G4 is held back by the front side bus it has. As you can see in those game tests, the G5 is way out ahead with the same cards because the G4 just can't supply enough data to the graphics cards to keep them busy.



    This also follows for other bandwidth hungry activities such as networking, raid arrays and running servers.



    Plus, the low power 1.6 G5 has lower power requirements now than the current 1.67Ghz G4 in the PowerBook never mind the 2Ghz overclocked 7447A they used in that test.



    Edit: I'd add that the test also shows that running most normal applications, the FSB doesn't actually matter and there's little difference between the G4 and G5. People get all heated about 3D game scores even if they're just running Word.
  • Reply 78 of 78
    dh87dh87 Posts: 73member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by aegisdesign

    Ultimately, the G4 is held back by the front side bus it has. As you can see in those game tests, the G5 is way out ahead with the same cards because the G4 just can't supply enough data to the graphics cards to keep them busy.



    This also follows for other bandwidth hungry activities such as networking, raid arrays and running servers.



    Plus, the low power 1.6 G5 has lower power requirements now than the current 1.67Ghz G4 in the PowerBook never mind the 2Ghz overclocked 7447A they used in that test.



    Edit: I'd add that the test also shows that running most normal applications, the FSB doesn't actually matter and there's little difference between the G4 and G5. People get all heated about 3D game scores even if they're just running Word.




    I'm not disagreeing with you. The imaginary 7448 would have a faster FSB and would be faster still than the 7447A barefeats is testing. It's quite possible that a 7448 would be faster overall than a low-power 970 at the same clock speed.



    Running Word faster is very important, as it allows an overall higher density of frustration.
Sign In or Register to comment.