PDA

View Full Version : G3 vs. G4


2ms
Nov 22, 2002, 08:21 AM
How much faster than an 800Mhz G3 is an 800Mhz G4? I won't be using Photoshop. I guess I might do some audio and/or video stuff very occasionally, but I'll overwhelmingly be using it like a typical hard-working/busy college student for basic stuff. This doesn't mean speed doesn't matter to me though -- I'm very sensitive to things like latency of GUI and generally like my computers snappy. I'm aware OSX has some G4 optimization, but can't see how the effects could be that pervasive.

Is the G3 actually faster on a lot of things? Give me ball-park figures like "G4 10% faster 75% of time, 5% slower 10% of time, and 80% faster 15% of the time."

Any other things I should know while trying to decide whether to get iBook to replace in 2 years or TiBook to replace in 3 years?

oldMac
Nov 22, 2002, 08:54 AM
The speed really depends a lot more on the machine than on the G3 vs. G4. At the same clock speed, the G4 is really not much faster than the G3 for integer performance, which is what really matters for 90% of what most people do with their computers.

The biggest difference, however, is that Apple puts G4s in nicer machines. Machines are not speedy by clock speed alone. There are other *huge* factors to consider including hard drive speed, bus speed, video chipset, bus architecture and all kinds of other things.

Typically, you'll find that Apple's G4 machines are faster than their G3 machines primarily because the G4s tend to get better hardware. This is especially true with the laptops (which makes sense since the iBook is the only machine that Apple still puts a G3 in.)

That being said, I've got a 500Mhz iBook and love it. However, I do wish it were a bit quicker running OS X and wish it could drive an external monitor at higher resolutions. The newer iBooks look to be better at running OS X and there's a hack to drive external monitors at higher resolutions. For price/performance, it's probably the best deal in Apple's lineup.

Goblin2099
Nov 22, 2002, 09:09 AM
Just as a note, my 1st generation 500 mhz tibook outscores a brand new 800mhz ibook in just about every category using Xbench. It's obviously not the most scientific comparison, and doesn't say too much about real world tasks, but it's enough to show that the G4 has enough of a jump on the G3 to overcome lower clockspeed and a slower graphics card.

lmalave
Nov 22, 2002, 02:37 PM
Originally posted by 2ms
...I'll overwhelmingly be using it like a typical hard-working/busy college student for basic stuff. This doesn't mean speed doesn't matter to me though -- I'm very sensitive to things like latency of GUI and generally like my computers snappy.

Sounds like you're the ideal iBook customer. Do yourself and your wallet a favor, and get the 12.1" 800MHz iBook. OS X is quite snappy on it, and its size and ruggedness make it ideal for just tossing in your backpack with your other stuff. And it's definitely worth the extra $300 (more than the $999 iBook) to get the Combo drive plus the 32MB VRAM. I was watching the first Band of Brothers DVD on my iBook last night and it makes a niiiiiiice portable DVD player. Buy it from a reseller, too, so you can save the sales tax and get the extra stuff they always offer (for $1333 I got my iBook with 384MB RAM and a printer free after rebate).

HasanDaddy
Nov 23, 2002, 06:16 AM
I own a new iBook G3 (800 mhz), and an old PowerBook G4 (500 mhz)

The G4 performs MUCH better....

atomwork
Nov 23, 2002, 06:56 AM
Im confused. My first mac was a IIlc or so;) Since i upgraded to a G4 800 from a G3 400 the world wasn't the same. The new macs are flying saucers if you ask me.
Regarding this toppic. Isn't apple promotion the G4 with the Veclocity Power meahning that data runs totally different and better then any PC and the older processors? So, then the G4 architecture would be anyway better no matter if the clockspeed is the same.
I was just last week at a friends house and he had the 14" G3. Don't know how fast but must be 500, 600...It was ok. Guess with the newer updates they are a good deal

irmongoose
Nov 23, 2002, 07:35 AM
The whole Megahertz Myth was about the Velocity Engine and how it could out-do any megahertz processor at that time. And it actually did. But even the Velocity Engine can only last so long. Once you get to 2.4 or 3 Gigahertz processors, they're going to beat the G4 no matter what. That said, I don't agree with Apple going Intel or AMD... I'm quite confident that a 1.8 or 2 gigahertz IBM processor with the Velocity Engine could beat the Intels.


On a side note, if you are unsatisfied with your OS X speed, check VersionTracker for a theme changer called Duality. I never believed people saying that it made things faster, but I saw a nice looking theme and I decided to check it out, and it really works. I love it.

Here (http://planeta.terra.com.br/informatica/MacMotiva/themes.html)'s the theme I am talking about (the first one).




irmongoose

jefhatfield
Nov 23, 2002, 08:03 PM
and dont forget the price difference...you get what you pay for and sometimes the g4 is giving you things you may not need

like an above poster said, you sound like the ideal ibook user

2ms
Nov 23, 2002, 08:23 PM
I'm getting a lot of conflicting information here. A couple people say a 500Mhz G4 is way faster than an 800Mhz G3 and yet some say the G4's primarily advantage is due to coming along with better other hardware. Are the two basically the same on integer ops? The TiBooks used to have way faster bus and video, but now the iBooks have 50% faster bus than before and sweet video which is only slightly inferior to TiBook's, so I'd think current iBooks are way closer than older iBooks.

Basically, excluding the effects of other hardware, how much faster is a G4 (w/256k L2 + 1MB L3) than a G3 (w/512 L2) at the same clock speed on everyday tasks? I tend to take benchmarks with a major grain of salt since my impression is that they majorly emphasize things like content creation with lots of fp calculations and/or streaming data which needs more bandwidth and cache(are those the only things the G4 really creams the G3 in?).

MacBandit
Nov 23, 2002, 08:50 PM
Originally posted by 2ms
I'm getting a lot of conflicting information here. A couple people say a 500Mhz G4 is way faster than an 800Mhz G3 and yet some say the G4's primarily advantage is due to coming along with better other hardware. Are the two basically the same on integer ops? The TiBooks used to have way faster bus and video, but now the iBooks have 50% faster bus than before and sweet video which is only slightly inferior to TiBook's, so I'd think current iBooks are way closer than older iBooks.

Basically, excluding the effects of other hardware, how much faster is a G4 (w/256k L2 + 1MB L3) than a G3 (w/512 L2) at the same clock speed on everyday tasks? I tend to take benchmarks with a major grain of salt since my impression is that they majorly emphasize things like content creation with lots of fp calculations and/or streaming data which needs more bandwidth and cache(are those the only things the G4 really creams the G3 in?).


The conflicting reports are because there are two different situations people are quoting. On one hand almost any G4 will be faster when using OSX. OSX has been optimized quite a bit to take advantage of Altivec (Velocity Engine). On the other hand any program that hasn't been or isn't able to be optimized for Altivec will run approximately the same on either the G4 or the G3 at the same MHz thought he G3 will have a very slight advantage in this case.

Hemingray
Nov 23, 2002, 09:10 PM
Originally posted by irmongoose
On a side note, if you are unsatisfied with your OS X speed, check VersionTracker for a theme changer called Duality. I never believed people saying that it made things faster, but I saw a nice looking theme and I decided to check it out, and it really works. I love it.

Here (http://planeta.terra.com.br/informatica/MacMotiva/themes.html)'s the theme I am talking about (the first one).

Sweet, someone updated Iridium Quicksilver to work under 10.2! Just reinstalled it. Boy I sure missed that skin... thanks for the heads up! :)

bousozoku
Nov 23, 2002, 09:43 PM
Originally posted by MacBandit



The conflicting reports are because there are two different situations people are quoting. On one hand almost any G4 will be faster when using OSX. OSX has been optimized quite a bit to take advantage of Altivec (Velocity Engine). On the other hand any program that hasn't been or isn't able to be optimized for Altivec will run approximately the same on either the G4 or the G3 at the same MHz thought he G3 will have a very slight advantage in this case.

Well said!

There is probably less than 10 percent difference between the two without AltiVec.

Photoshop does seem amazing with a G4 but mail, iChat, and the majority of applications don't. Mac OS X runs better with a G4 but I wouldn't say it's terribly faster as long as there's a fast hard drive in the G3. folding@home doesn't run twice as fast on each processor of my dual G4/800 as it does on my G3/400. The work unit which takes 43 minutes to process on the G4 takes 66 minutes. The G3 has a fast hard drive, the G4 doesn't.

finchna
Nov 24, 2002, 12:51 AM
For what's it's worth I just post the following in a thread about laptops in response to the question 4 below. The apps I run most frequently on my ibook are Office (everything but Entourage), Graphic Converter, First Class email, Apple email, iChat, Weatherman, IE, Chimera, Inspiration, Toast, iTunes, Seti) It might also be that the improvements in the new line will make things like I describe less of an issue. Hope it works for what you want to do. Ciao,

Nathan


4) im getting 512 megs more ram with the ibook, would OSX be pretty fast in your oppinion? or pretty slow (someone kept saying that osx would be slow as heck on an ibook)

------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't know if you read a post I made about this a while ago in a different discussion, but here's my "less than speedy story." This might depend a bit on the model--did you get a 700 or 800 with 32MB vram? My 600 is not snappy running 10.2.2--not slow as heck, but the beachball pops up when I print fairly small documents on a network (always via Airport). There are times I have to wait to save things, connecting to network volumes takes more time than it should, opening large PPT decks shows a beachball as does moving through complex slides. However, as I said, I'm on an airport net which is likely slower than wired Ethernet, yet not as slow as a modem. I have a bunch of haxies--but the haxie folks tell me that they should not slow things down--actually got some of them to speed things up--like shadow removers, etc. I also run many apps at the same time. Bottom line is, I'm getting a TiBook as my ibook has become less than a great production tool.

insidedanshead
Nov 24, 2002, 02:22 AM
If it means anything.. I have a 733 Mhz G4 and I pretty much run Photoshop, Photoshop, and a little bit more of Photoshop.. personally there isn't a G3 Machine out there that I could stand using for photoshop.. my 733 G4 is starting to feel really old and sluggish.. so I really couldn't imagine buying a G3 nowadays.. but thats just me.. i would say my use for my mac is pretty specialized. and that for ordinary users G3s may work great. I have a friend with a 500Mhz ibook and he records music and develops websites and everything on it.. has no problem.. even ran Warcraft III the other day and wasn't too bad.

SilvorX
Nov 24, 2002, 03:20 AM
i decided on an ibook since i heard it was pretty fast (fast enough so that probably the most basica appz wont take more than a min to load), but someone (not naming any names :p) kept annoying me cuz im getting an ibook...and hes going "ibooks are way too slow" and so on...but unlike him, i have a budget and ibook fits right in it (and i'll have enough money left over to get a few other accessories)
the ibook is a great deal (concidering its one of the cheapest laptops on the market (that has a combo drive)

redAPPLE
Nov 24, 2002, 04:39 AM
[i]


On a side note, if you are unsatisfied with your OS X speed, check VersionTracker for a theme changer called Duality. I never believed people saying that it made things faster, but I saw a nice looking theme and I decided to check it out, and it really works. I love it.

Here (http://planeta.terra.com.br/informatica/MacMotiva/themes.html)'s the theme I am talking about (the first one).




irmongoose [/B]

let me get this right. u mean, by changing the "theme", the mac would respond "faster"?

i mean RESPOND by startups? the whole computing experience (= starting up photoshop)?

naturally, working with photoshop would be a whole different thing...

irmongoose
Nov 24, 2002, 04:44 AM
Originally posted by redAPPLE


let me get this right. u mean, by changing the "theme", the mac would respond "faster"?

i mean RESPOND by startups? the whole computing experience (= starting up photoshop)?

naturally, working with photoshop would be a whole different thing...

startups won't be any quicker, but the overall responsness of OS X increases quite a lot. For example, when I would click a folder in my dock, it would take about a second for the window to actually load, and then the icons within would loadd after that, taking about another second. Now, with a new theme, it takes less than half a second for both the window to come up and the icons to show up.





irmongoose

redAPPLE
Nov 24, 2002, 08:29 AM
Originally posted by irmongoose


startups won't be any quicker, but the overall responsness of OS X increases quite a lot. For example, when I would click a folder in my dock, it would take about a second for the window to actually load, and then the icons within would loadd after that, taking about another second. Now, with a new theme, it takes less than half a second for both the window to come up and the icons to show up.





irmongoose

interesting. thx. funny that apple does not do this things themselves.

apple should try to make os x as "responsive" or fast as possible.

bousozoku
Nov 24, 2002, 11:16 AM
Something to remember about the startup speed of applications is that a lot less depends on Apple than depends on the 3rd party developer's code.

Adobe, for example, has applications which were written in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Since Windows 95, their code has become stable and speed enhancements don't really depend on Adobe much. On Mac OS, a lot of companies used tricks to get the most out of the cooperative multitasking environment. These tricks no longer help the situation and most of the time, slow down things.

Of course, we don't have to worry about Cocoa-based applications because these don't have a Macintosh or cooperative-multitasking legacy to hinder them. If they're slow, it's most likely because Cocoa is slow.

finchna: I would bet that if you put a faster hard drive with a bigger buffer, suddenly your applications would become faster on your iBook.

ddtlm
Nov 24, 2002, 11:30 AM
2ms, oldMac:

It's not very commonly known, but AltiVec actually has more resources for integer calculations than it does for floating point calculations. RC5, for example, is all integers and is probably the single thing at which G4's kick the most butt compared to other processors.

ctbarton
Nov 24, 2002, 11:47 AM
I own a 500mhz iBook with 384mb RAM and I'm VERY happy with how it runs 10.2. This past week, though, I got to toy around with a friends 700mhz iBook with the suped up graphics card and only 128mb of memory and was blown away at how much faster it was. The extra video memory running Quartz Extreme is a huge improvement. I can only imagine that the new 800mhz iBooks are even snappier!

I too am a college student and I can tell you, that for price, durability, usefullness, price and price...go iBook. And color me green with envy if you do...:D

lmalave
Nov 24, 2002, 12:22 PM
Originally posted by ctbarton
I own a 500mhz iBook with 384mb RAM and I'm VERY happy with how it runs 10.2. This past week, though, I got to toy around with a friends 700mhz iBook with the suped up graphics card and only 128mb of memory and was blown away at how much faster it was. The extra video memory running Quartz Extreme is a huge improvement. I can only imagine that the new 800mhz iBooks are even snappier!

I too am a college student and I can tell you, that for price, durability, usefullness, price and price...go iBook. And color me green with envy if you do...:D

Yup, I own a new 800MHz iBook (384 MB), and I can confirm that it's quite snappy. Probably not that much faster than the 700MHz with 128MB RAM - I too was surprised with just how fast the low-end model was even with only 128MB RAM and 16MB VRAM.

BenderBot1138
Nov 24, 2002, 06:26 PM
If I'm not mistaken, G3 machines can be clustered just like G4 machines. I think I read something about it on the Apple site somewhere.

I'm wondering if it's possible to mix and match as well, but the main thing is that if I'm correct about the G3 clustering, let's see non-apple machine corporations try to do that with doubling their HR budgets!

I'm thinking that as G3 prices drop, eB*y, and me are going to become friends as the prospect of a G3 cluster becomes a fun option, and maybe even a real workhorse for some tasks. ... be interesting to know if anyone has or is trying this.

jefhatfield
Nov 24, 2002, 07:04 PM
let's say overall in same clock speed, the G4 is ten percent faster than the G3

the G3 was ten percent faster than the PPC 604e in its day and was the faster single jump in processor speed benchmarks apple had ever seen

MacBandit
Nov 24, 2002, 07:59 PM
Originally posted by BenderBot1138
If I'm not mistaken, G3 machines can be clustered just like G4 machines. I think I read something about it on the Apple site somewhere.

I'm wondering if it's possible to mix and match as well, but the main thing is that if I'm correct about the G3 clustering, let's see non-apple machine corporations try to do that with doubling their HR budgets!

I'm thinking that as G3 prices drop, eB*y, and me are going to become friends as the prospect of a G3 cluster becomes a fun option, and maybe even a real workhorse for some tasks. ... be interesting to know if anyone has or is trying this.


Yes it is possible to cluster G3 and to mix and match.

Originally posted by jefhatfield
let's say overall in same clock speed, the G4 is ten percent faster than the G3

Actually this is incorrect. The current Sahara G3 is actually faster MHz to MHz then a G4 at purely CPU tasks.

If the G4 didn't have Altivec there would be absolutely no advantage to it. We would be better off with the G3 in that case.

daveg5
Nov 25, 2002, 12:38 AM
if the software in not optimzed for altivec G4 as most osx music-graphics-video-mp3 apps are the g3 is actually faster in most benchmarks due to larger L2 cache and other things

daveg5
Nov 25, 2002, 12:46 AM
check www.barefeats.com they put a 700MHZ ibook up to a 800MHZ TIbook
The TIbook500 benchmarks high because of its 1MBL2cache 4 times current TIbooks. in logic the tibook 500 can run mor reverbs then the 667 rev b tibook.
Also keep in mind with multiprocessing OSX memory is everything when doing multiple apps ibook only 640 tibook 1GB.
why not get an ibook 12.1 and a emac for video/music graphics work for the same price of a TIBOOK

jefhatfield
Nov 25, 2002, 10:11 AM
Originally posted by MacBandit



Yes it is possible to cluster G3 and to mix and match.



Actually this is incorrect. The current Sahara G3 is actually faster MHz to MHz then a G4 at purely CPU tasks.

If the G4 didn't have Altivec there would be absolutely no advantage to it. We would be better off with the G3 in that case.

actually, this is true...but with professional graphics programs and os x istself using altivec, get the tibook if you can afford it over the g3 sahara ibook

for me, with my budget, and needs, the ibook suits me just fine;)

jettredmont
Nov 25, 2002, 11:10 AM
Originally posted by oldMac
The speed really depends a lot more on the machine than on the G3 vs. G4. At the same clock speed, the G4 is really not much faster than the G3 for integer performance, which is what really matters for 90% of what most people do with their computers.


Well, can't give you any anectdotal evidence, but in theory even without the AltiVec instructions the G4 should be significantly faster than the (Motorola) G3 because the memory bus is kept full on the G4 whereas on the G3 it operates at approximately 50% capacity in normal operation.

Effectively, the G4 talks with the rest of the system at twice the rate of the G3 at equivalent bus width/speed. Also, of course, compounding this the newest G4s have a faster bus cycle.

Taking the common assumption that the chief bottleneck in the G4 is the system bus, it would stand to reason that cutting that bus in half (going back to a G3) would come very close to cutting overall processor performance by half as well.

On the other hand, this data is from Motorola's G3s, not IBM's. I don't know how much IBM's G3 design differs from Moto's, and it is quite possible that the IBM G3s do keep their system bus full. But still, currently shipping G3s do have a slower peak rate system bus, so even if they are as efficient as the G4 in keeping their bus filled, they are operating at 25% less bus bandwidth, which, again, should give a close to 25% drop in performance relative to a similarly-clocked G4.

MacBandit
Nov 25, 2002, 12:52 PM
Originally posted by jettredmont


Well, can't give you any anectdotal evidence, but in theory even without the AltiVec instructions the G4 should be significantly faster than the (Motorola) G3 because the memory bus is kept full on the G4 whereas on the G3 it operates at approximately 50% capacity in normal operation.

Effectively, the G4 talks with the rest of the system at twice the rate of the G3 at equivalent bus width/speed. Also, of course, compounding this the newest G4s have a faster bus cycle.

Taking the common assumption that the chief bottleneck in the G4 is the system bus, it would stand to reason that cutting that bus in half (going back to a G3) would come very close to cutting overall processor performance by half as well.

On the other hand, this data is from Motorola's G3s, not IBM's. I don't know how much IBM's G3 design differs from Moto's, and it is quite possible that the IBM G3s do keep their system bus full. But still, currently shipping G3s do have a slower peak rate system bus, so even if they are as efficient as the G4 in keeping their bus filled, they are operating at 25% less bus bandwidth, which, again, should give a close to 25% drop in performance relative to a similarly-clocked G4.

The main advantage of the IBM Sahara G3 is it is fully capable of handling DDR buses. It is a very capable chip and IS faster period when tested then an equal MHz G4 chip on cpu tasks without altivec.

ftaok
Nov 25, 2002, 01:12 PM
Originally posted by MacBandit
The main advantage of the IBM Sahara G3 is it is fully capable of handling DDR buses. It is a very capable chip and IS faster period when tested then an equal MHz G4 chip on cpu tasks without altivec. It's all well and good that the Sahara G3 is faster than Moto's G4 on non-Altivec stuff, but more and more "consumer" apps are taking advantage of Altivec. Yeah, Word and Excel don't use Altivec, but stuff like iPhoto, iMovie and iTunes all do. And more and more consumers are using stuff like Photoshop. Plus, OS X is very much optimized for Altivec.

Now, if they could shoe-horn in Altivec onto a Sahara G3, that would be nice.

MacBandit
Nov 25, 2002, 01:57 PM
Originally posted by ftaok
It's all well and good that the Sahara G3 is faster than Moto's G4 on non-Altivec stuff, but more and more "consumer" apps are taking advantage of Altivec. Yeah, Word and Excel don't use Altivec, but stuff like iPhoto, iMovie and iTunes all do. And more and more consumers are using stuff like Photoshop. Plus, OS X is very much optimized for Altivec.

Now, if they could shoe-horn in Altivec onto a Sahara G3, that would be nice.

It is true that more and more programs are taking advantage of Altivec. Though for someone who is just buying an iBook as a portable word processor and organiser the G3 is more then enough.

I don't think adding Altivec to the G3 would gain you much. I think they would probably have to lenghthen the pipeline to ensure data integrity when adding Altivec and this would destroy it's advantage. On the other hand we would have a DDR FSB.

barkmonster
Nov 25, 2002, 03:17 PM
This iBook vs iMac vs eMac vs TiBook (http://www.barefeats.com/emac.html) test page on barefeats shows exactly how a G3 can trash a G4 by quite a significant margin in tests where altivec isn't a factor.

looking at it from a purely cpu point of view the comparison is real mixed bag but if IBM could crank out 1Ghz+ Sahara G3s with VMX/Altivec and only increase the pipeline stages to the SiMD unit then we should have the perfect desktop or laptop chip.

A comparison :

Motorola MPC 7455 (G4)

7 Pipeline Stages
0.18 Ám CMOS
256K SRAM L2 @ cpu speed
1Mb or 2Mb L3 @ 1:4 of cpu speed using DDR SRAM (effectively 1:2 of cpu speed)
133Mhz Bus (actually it's 150/167Mhz now, the 7455 has been upgraded)

MPC7455 PDF (http://e-www.motorola.com/brdata/PDFDB/docs/MPC7455EC.pdf) (unfortunately I can't find a link to the revised documentation with the info about the bus speed increase from 133 to 150/167Mhz)

IBM 700Mhz Sahara G3

4 Pipeline Stages
0.13-micron CMOS
512K SRAM L2 @ Cpu speed
100 - 200Mhz Bus, supports DDR

Sahara PDF (http://www-3.ibm.com/chips/techlib/techlib.nsf/techdocs/2FF4861D6755A6CA87256BB1006B1DE6/$file/PPC750FX_PB.PDF)

2ms
Nov 26, 2002, 01:52 AM
Are iBooks presently being produced with this .13 IBM G3? If so, I'd imagine that's a pretty big deal. If the G4s are .18 whereas G3s are .13, it'd seem the iBooks must a substantial advantage in battery life and/or heat generation (I don't like having hot plate in lap). The more opposite to 70watt (that underclock by 50% -- read slow as hell -- using Speedstep "technology" when unplugged) P4s the better. The fundamental efficiency advantage of risc versus x86 has always been one of the things that intrigues me the most about apple laptops.

If the sahara isn't in G3s now, when will it be available?

MacBandit
Nov 26, 2002, 02:09 AM
Originally posted by 2ms
Are iBooks presently being produced with this .13 IBM G3? If so, I'd imagine that's a pretty big deal. If the G4s are .18 whereas G3s are .13, it'd seem the iBooks must a substantial advantage in battery life and/or heat generation (I don't like having hot plate in lap). The more opposite to 70watt (that underclock by 50% -- read slow as hell -- using Speedstep "technology" when unplugged) P4s the better. The fundamental efficiency advantage of risc versus x86 has always been one of the things that intrigues me the most about apple laptops.

If the sahara isn't in G3s now, when will it be available?

The Sahara is current in the the iBooks it's also known as the 750FX. I think even the G4 only consumes 40Watts and yes the G3 is better then that.

Ben Sheehan
Nov 26, 2002, 02:24 AM
If the sahara isn't in G3s now, when will it be available?

It's actually been in the ibooks since the last update. Anyone know how far away the .13 G4 is?

jefhatfield
Nov 26, 2002, 06:12 AM
Originally posted by Ben Sheehan


It's actually been in the ibooks since the last update. Anyone know how far away the .13 G4 is?

heard it rumored for 2003

that chip would kick a$$ and not be a hotplate in the tibook:p

MacBandit
Nov 26, 2002, 10:02 AM
Originally posted by Ben Sheehan


It's actually been in the ibooks since the last update. Anyone know how far away the .13 G4 is?

It was supposed to be out by July this year but Moto has serious problems making any chip at that size. So it has been delayed and delayed again. Current outlook is for early 2003. If they ever get the G4 to .13 there is a good posibility we will see the G5 chips because they were supposed to start at .13. The reason they gave up or delayed the G5 indefinitely was because they never could get the die down to that size.

jefhatfield
Nov 28, 2002, 04:54 PM
Originally posted by MacBandit


It was supposed to be out by July this year but Moto has serious problems making any chip at that size. So it has been delayed and delayed again. Current outlook is for early 2003. If they ever get the G4 to .13 there is a good posibility we will see the G5 chips because they were supposed to start at .13. The reason they gave up or delayed the G5 indefinitely was because they never could get the die down to that size.

that is interesting to know

i wonder if that will greatly reduce heat and up battery times on laptops

seemed to do well for the pentiums when they went to .13 so i hope the G4 running machines won't get complaints about loud fans and hot laptops once the process goes to .13

at some point, heat will cease to be a "major" issue of complaint for computers

processor prices will become the most major issues and the reflection it has on the now overpriced macs

at least, thank god lcd prices and ram prices have come down over the last couple of years:D

daveg5
Nov 28, 2002, 05:26 PM
Originally posted by MacBandit



Yes it is possible to cluster G3 and to mix and match.



Actually this is incorrect. The current Sahara G3 is actually faster MHz to MHz then a G4 at purely CPU tasks.

If the G4 didn't have Altivec there would be absolutely no advantage to it. We would be better off with the G3 in that case.

I agree , I was always told that the oringinall g4 7400 was a g3 with the fpu from the 604e added along with altivec. so tecnically the should be the same at non altivec apps. however the g4 lost its large L2 cache was 1MB now 256k thats only 1/4 the size and has grown from 4 pipeline stages to 7. (thiss was the only way to increase clock speed. Meanwhile the g3 only lost half of its L2 cache and i may be wrong here but still has a smaller pipe which is why its top speed now is just 1.00 instead of 1.25 also it has less things to do since the is no altivec and other g4 custom things and its memory system if utilized is much more advance.
I am in to audio so I most have a G4 for plug ins and not i get about twice the performance of a same clocked g3 because of altivec.

daveg5
Nov 28, 2002, 05:37 PM
http://www.barefeats.com/pb8.html
the ibook 700 even beats the ti800 in bryce
of course it loses in every thing else that is altivec related

adamcoop
Nov 28, 2002, 07:46 PM
Originally posted by MacBandit

On the other hand any program that hasn't been or isn't able to be optimized for Altivec will run approximately the same on either the G4 or the G3 at the same MHz thought he G3 will have a very slight advantage in this case.

We benchmark all of our machines at work (we have slow days), and have found that, when using the Norton Benchmarking software, the G3 chip is actually faster per Mhz than the G4. One example was that we test an iBook 700 against an eMac 700. The eMac won out in the end due to the faster drive and better video, but the CPU performance was lower than the iBooks. (I should mention that the Norton app doesn't test altivec operations.)
The reason for the G3 being faster than the G4 (per Mhz) comes down to the shorter pipeline of the G3 (4 stages vs. 7).

MacBandit
Nov 28, 2002, 09:37 PM
Originally posted by adamcoop


We benchmark all of our machines at work (we have slow days), and have found that, when using the Norton Benchmarking software, the G3 chip is actually faster per Mhz than the G4. One example was that we test an iBook 700 against an eMac 700. The eMac won out in the end due to the faster drive and better video, but the CPU performance was lower than the iBooks. (I should mention that the Norton app doesn't test altivec operations.)
The reason for the G3 being faster than the G4 (per Mhz) comes down to the shorter pipeline of the G3 (4 stages vs. 7).


If you read some of my other posts I explained myself in more detail. I agree 100% that the G3 is faster then a G4 at the same MHz as long as Altivec is not being used.

adamcoop
Nov 28, 2002, 09:50 PM
Originally posted by MacBandit



If you read some of my other posts I explained myself in more detail. I agree 100% that the G3 is faster then a G4 at the same MHz as long as Altivec is not being used.

Yeah, i got that. I just felt like babbling.
Again, quiet day.

Newtonboy
Nov 28, 2002, 09:51 PM
I know the graphics card ain't the best, but I'm absolutely in love with my Pismo. you can probably get one pretty cheap on ebay or such and for $300 drop in a 500MHz G4. Its a lil extra work, but a nice way to get a G4 on a budget. Plus the expansion bay is nice. If I could upgrade the graphics card to a Quarts Extreme compatable card I would in a heart beat, but hey, what the heck. I have no complaints about this lil philly.

jefhatfield
Nov 28, 2002, 11:14 PM
Originally posted by Newtonboy
I know the graphics card ain't the best, but I'm absolutely in love with my Pismo. you can probably get one pretty cheap on ebay or such and for $300 drop in a 500MHz G4. Its a lil extra work, but a nice way to get a G4 on a budget. Plus the expansion bay is nice. If I could upgrade the graphics card to a Quarts Extreme compatable card I would in a heart beat, but hey, what the heck. I have no complaints about this lil philly.

how much ram does the pismo's video card have?

Newtonboy
Nov 29, 2002, 06:13 AM
Originally posted by jefhatfield


how much ram does the pismo's video card have?

Its an ATI Rage with 8 megs of RAM

JSRockit
Nov 29, 2002, 09:01 AM
Originally posted by Newtonboy
You can probably get one pretty cheap on ebay or such and for $300 drop in a 500MHz G4. [/B]

Not really cheap...Pismo's still go for $800-$1000 on ebay...and then to put a G4 in it...another few hundred...it isn't worth it unless you absolutely hate the TiBooks design or think that the iBook sucks. At this point, the iBook for $1299 or $1599 kills the Pismo...but I know some people love the Pismo so...it is all about what you want.
You can get a 500mhz G4 TiBook off of ebay for about $1300...and the 400mhz TiBook for $1100.

jefhatfield
Nov 29, 2002, 11:44 AM
pismos do have that hot swapable bay option which is great for traveling people...you can have two batteries

and not everybody needs power beyond a 500 mhz G4 chip

if apple brought in a tibook at $1999, there would probably be no reason for a used pismo

but i am glad that apple brought their ibook to $999

macphoria
Nov 29, 2002, 02:26 PM
As a person who also wanted to purchase either iBook or PowerBook, I'll try to give a definitive answer.

I recently tested G3 iBook 700 and Powerbook G4 667 with bunch of different softwares. And this is what I think.

I extensively use Photoshop, Illustrator, QuarkXpress, AfterEffects, little bit of Final Cut Pro, and iMovie. When I tested these programs on G3 iBook everything worked just fine. Things ran smoothly without any noticeable problems and a little slow but nothing major. Until I did Filters and Rendering on video programs. While you are working on the project, iBook is fine. But when you apply filters or render the movie (export as QuickTime movie, etc) it takes MUCH longer time than PowerBook G4. And if your QuickTime movie is large (pixel dimensions and frame rate), it will not run smoothly.

I was very disappointed about this because G3 iBook worked fine on everything until I tried filters and rendering on video programs. And I actually wanted G3 iBook more than G4 Powerbook because I've been hearing a lot about problems with G4 Powerbook such as paint flaking off and hinge breaking off. An option would have been to buy G4 Powerbook at local vendor and pay extra warranty fee so that I could return it if some problems arouse with G4 Powerbook. But I simply don't have that kind of budget. And I just like G3 iBook compactness better.

Personally, I decided to wait and get more money so I can afford either G4 Powerbook or faster G3 iBook (maybe G4 iBook?) when it comes out in the future. But if you are considering G3 iBook or G4 Powerbook NOW, I dare to say go with G3 iBook. Because if you are a casual user and do not use video programs often as I do (I use video programs daily) you can work around little bit of wait on rendering time. You can work on the project and set it to render when you go on a break or to sleep, which is what I used to do with older Power Mac G3. And to me, with ruggedness, price, iBook is much better value overall. If I didn't have to worry about tight deadlines on my work, I would go out TODAY and by iBook G3.

Sherman
Nov 29, 2002, 04:37 PM
Here's an interesting thing I noticed, OSX is actually faster than 9, it just has all these drop shadows and other gimmicky things that slow it down.


If you have KDX you know what i mean. It has it's own sort of "theme" that it uses and it is extremely responsive on my 466 clamshell ibook, no speed demon in any respects.

It's just that without all that extra crap OSX is fast. that's why when you have another theme it might remove those unessecary things, and thereby making your mac faster.

pnz999
Nov 30, 2002, 01:05 AM
what is KDK? what does it do?

daveg5
Nov 30, 2002, 01:12 AM
Originally posted by Sherman
Here's an interesting thing I noticed, OSX is actually faster than 9, it just has all these drop shadows and other gimmicky things that slow it down.


If you have KDX you know what i mean. It has it's own sort of "theme" that it uses and it is extremely responsive on my 466 clamshell ibook, no speed demon in any respects.

It's just that without all that extra crap OSX is fast. that's why when you have another theme it might remove those unessecary things, and thereby making your mac faster.
you may be right because if you are using a g4 because osx is so optimized especially if you strip all of the eye candy, however with no benchmarks to support your claim it sounds a little iffy. why not run 1000 windows and other non altivec apps un your mac in 9 not classic and then in osx and then do the same with altivec enabled apps. i find that 9 seems faster all of the time on my g4 upgraded beige g3 especially when encoding video or using my music apps. cubase, logic, deck. etc. OSX will eventually catch up because 9 is no longer being optimized except in classic mode. but I could not wait so I am using 3rd party apps to make my 9 looks as good well almost as good as osx with out a performance hit{power windows, smooth type, daves browser, 3d launcher etc. this way when i must use 9 for music and encoding and my yamaha dspfactory sound card it looks almost as good as 10.
hopefully some one will give us some benchmarks of simotaneous released sofware products i.e. itunes2 os9, itunes2 osx

Sherman
Nov 30, 2002, 02:00 PM
Well you can test it yourself if you have a slower mac running OSX. Go on VersionTracker and download KDX, it's kind of like hotline. Not KDK, lol.

Also, to keep iTunes from eating up your CPU cycles turn off the "sound enhancer". When I put it all the way to the top it actually caused 100% CPU usage on my iBook.

barkmonster
Dec 2, 2002, 11:36 AM
Using any kind of altivec optimised code for the GUI is a complete waste of resources. I know with Quartz Extreme it's less of an issue but it shouldn't be an issue at all. Altivec is there so the G4 can try and match the raw cpu muscle of the increasingly more powerful chips Intel and AMD make. It's also there to accelerate code that would normally bog down any current cpu. Once I've got a G4 I hope any advantage altivec has isn't squashed by the sheer overhead of OS X. There's a lot of software synths and plug-ins that benefit enormously from altivec code, not to mention video codecs and such. It would be a waste to use the SiMD extensions on the OS instead of to speed up applications like they're designed to do.

jettredmont
Dec 2, 2002, 02:35 PM
Originally posted by barkmonster
Using any kind of altivec optimised code for the GUI is a complete waste of resources. I know with Quartz Extreme it's less of an issue but it shouldn't be an issue at all. Altivec is there so the G4 can try and match the raw cpu muscle of the increasingly more powerful chips Intel and AMD make. It's also there to accelerate code that would normally bog down any current cpu. Once I've got a G4 I hope any advantage altivec has isn't squashed by the sheer overhead of OS X. There's a lot of software synths and plug-ins that benefit enormously from altivec code, not to mention video codecs and such. It would be a waste to use the SiMD extensions on the OS instead of to speed up applications like they're designed to do.

Hmm. Well, either you or I has a fundamental problem in understanding AltiVec and pre-emptive multitasking.

On a CPU using pre-emptive multitasking, a single process (thread) "owns" the CPU for the duration of a time slice (how long that is is determined by the scheduler, not directly by the application as in co-op multitasking). The register state of threads has to be swapped out and in as their slices expire and come up again. While a particular thread owns the CPU, no other thread may execute on that CPU.

For instance, if AppX is doing a bunch of integer math, and AppY wants to do a bunch of floating point math, it would be really cool if the CPU would give it's integer units to AppX and its FP Units to AppY simultaneously. But that's simply not the case.

Now, I've seen the AltiVec unit described as a "co-processor", and indeed it does have its own set of registers, cache, etc. It is at least theoretically possible that when a particular thread "owns" the CPU proper, the AltiVec coprocessor could be chugging away on calculations for a different thread. However, I see this as a highly unlikely design (generally AltiVec instructions happen in tandem with PPC instructions, and so there is no AltiVec "chugging away" scenario where the CPU itself is idle for the majority of a time slice, and providing such possibility on the remote chance that it would be used would needlessly complicate the design for little noticable benefit even when it really would be used).

So, if OS X's "OS threads" (Finder, Quartz, etc) are using AltiVec, that's great. The OS using or not using AltiVec will have no bearing whatsoever on the performance of other processes that wish to use AltiVec, as any OS X altivec usage will be cleared out when its timeslice ends.

mcrain
Dec 2, 2002, 03:37 PM
Originally posted by jefhatfield
and dont forget the price difference...you get what you pay for and sometimes the g4 is giving you things you may not need

like an above poster said, you sound like the ideal ibook user

Sort of like me? I'm sure I would have been just fine with an iBook considering what I use my computer for, but I plan on owning it and using it for several years, and I just can't imagine the G3 being able to adequately perform in 2-3 years, much less 4.

I suggest going with the best you can afford or available if you have any hope of not replacing it (or worse, wishing you could replace it).

daveg5
Dec 2, 2002, 03:39 PM
Originally posted by barkmonster
Using any kind of altivec optimised code for the GUI is a complete waste of resources. I know with Quartz Extreme it's less of an issue but it shouldn't be an issue at all. Altivec is there so the G4 can try and match the raw cpu muscle of the increasingly more powerful chips Intel and AMD make. It's also there to accelerate code that would normally bog down any current cpu. Once I've got a G4 I hope any advantage altivec has isn't squashed by the sheer overhead of OS X. There's a lot of software synths and plug-ins that benefit enormously from altivec code, not to mention video codecs and such. It would be a waste to use the SiMD extensions on the OS instead of to speed up applications like they're designed to do.

My biege g3 upgraded to 600\240\83bus 7410 g4 overclocked with 768 of pc100 222 ram is running the OSX desktop GUI faster than a dual 1GHZ Powermac g4, I kid you not.resizing windows and dragging are now instaneous and you can twirl a window around without the cursor losing contact at 1600x1200 85hz and 2048x1536 75hz mind you! this along with virtual desktop http://www.macupdate.com/info.php/id/2287 gives negates the need for dual monitors I wonder how this looks on a Large lcd, let me know. www.aquamakeover.com/aqua.html
Once Apple finds out they will have to take it down so hurry.
I am now using Cubase in 9.22 my Yamaha dspfactory sound card and all my plugins and my voodoo 5500 video card not to mention my serial midi interfaces and stylewriter 1200 printer are all compatable now.
Thats a lot lot of money to replace in OSX.

Please try these and let me know what you think????????
I know you Jag only for Jag OSX only programs and there are alot.
there is also a program called os9forever that helps really old macs run 9.2, did not need that though.

slightly off subject I know.
to compare g4 to old g3 {not sahara}just cut of altivec support

pnz999
Dec 2, 2002, 08:32 PM
Is it wise to get a G3 machine? if everything in OS X relies on the velocity engine.

MacBandit
Dec 2, 2002, 10:44 PM
Originally posted by pnz999
Is it wise to get a G3 machine? if everything in OS X relies on the velocity engine.

It's not so much that it relies on it so much as it runs better with the G4 and Altivec specifically. The latest G3 Sahara processors run OSX very well.

pnz999
Dec 3, 2002, 07:57 PM
Originally posted by MacBandit


It's not so much that it relies on it so much as it runs better with the G4 and Altivec specifically. The latest G3 Sahara processors run OSX very well.


Does the new iBook uses G3 Sahara by IBM?

I keep reading about this velocity engine [that the G4 is optimized to run with it]

Does anyone know if Studio MX [including Dreamweaver/Flash], Photoshop 7, Illustrator, Office X, and iApps [iPhoto, iMovie] are optimize for vecolity engine [altivec]?



thank you

MacBandit
Dec 4, 2002, 12:43 AM
Originally posted by pnz999



Does the new iBook uses G3 Sahara by IBM?

I keep reading about this velocity engine [that the G4 is optimized to run with it]

Does anyone know if Studio MX [including Dreamweaver/Flash], Photoshop 7, Illustrator, Office X, and iApps [iPhoto, iMovie] are optimize for vecolity engine [altivec]?



thank you

Yes, the new iBooks have been using the Sahara G3 for almost a year now.

The velocity engine is actually a part of the G4 itself and yes it can make a huge difference. The key word is can. Not a lot of programs can take advantage of it. The ones that do can see a huge boost. If you plan on doing audio or video work definitely get a G4. Unless you don't have the money then don't worry about it the G3 has more then enough grunt to crank out audio and video. It's just nice to have the extra power.

We are so spoiled these days. I remember rendering with vista pro and the first version of Bryce on my Performa 600 wich had a 33MHz Motorola 030. It would take an hour to do a tiny 6 second low quality fly through. Now I can do the a simililar project but do incredible quality at full screen and do it nearly at real time.

Chryx
Dec 8, 2002, 08:02 PM
Originally posted by jettredmont
For instance, if AppX is doing a bunch of integer math, and AppY wants to do a bunch of floating point math, it would be really cool if the CPU would give it's integer units to AppX and its FP Units to AppY simultaneously. But that's simply not the case.

You just pretty much described what hyperthreading does :)

pnz999
Dec 9, 2002, 11:24 AM
I had been using the dual 867 for a week now! i am enjoying the whole os x thing.. but I hate that everything needs to be in the Library..like in iPhoto, iTunes to see my files *.jpg/*.mp3? any suggestions?

Anyways, like I have said I like the dual 867 [stock config.] perfromance... but I want to return it tommorow, for a portable laptop. Well, I am worried about the G3 performance? and worried about the slow performance? without the altivec. D you think i wil be seeing alot of "beachballs" of the G3 800 Mhz?



hopefully, ibook will get a G4? soon by MWSF or I am stuck in a Dell PC.

daveg5
Dec 9, 2002, 05:19 PM
You can find new test of the ibook vs tibook vs dual 1ghz g4 here
http://macspeedzone.com/html/hardware/machine/comparison/portable/powerbook/index.shtml
the ibook stands up well for itself even in altivec optimized apps and is the best buy in Apple portables I now see why Apple did not release the 1GHZ g3 yet even though it is available, because it would have even beaten the dual 1GHZ in some benchmarks, could not have done that.
peace

MacBandit
Dec 10, 2002, 01:27 AM
Originally posted by daveg5
You can find new test of the ibook vs tibook vs dual 1ghz g4 here
http://macspeedzone.com/html/hardware/machine/comparison/portable/powerbook/index.shtml
the ibook stands up well for itself even in altivec optimized apps and is the best buy in Apple portables I now see why Apple did not release the 1GHZ g3 yet even though it is available, because it would have even beaten the dual 1GHZ in some benchmarks, could not have done that.
peace

What those tests don't show are real world tests where you are importing in iTunes and converting and rendering in iMovie. The Duals will destroy any other mac in this scenario. Simply because they 2 processors one for each app which works very nicely in 10.2.

daveg5
Dec 10, 2002, 02:03 AM
Originally posted by MacBandit


What those tests don't show are real world tests where you are importing in iTunes and converting and rendering in iMovie. The Duals will destroy any other mac in this scenario. Simply because they 2 processors one for each app which works very nicely in 10.2.

i agree with you. still a superb showing for the little ibook though.
for general purpose and ocassional video and encoding the ibbok is a bargin by apple standards, especially with the dual independant monitor hack.
but duals will totally destroy it on mp aware apps and when running multiple apps at the same time.

MacBandit
Dec 10, 2002, 02:20 AM
Originally posted by daveg5


i agree with you. still a superb showing for the little ibook though.
for general purpose and ocassional video and encoding the ibbok is a bargin by apple standards, especially with the dual independant monitor hack.
but duals will totally destroy it on mp aware apps and when running multiple apps at the same time.

I agree the iBook is a great computer and very under rated. It does very well and the G3 Sahara is owed a lot of credit.

daveg5
Dec 10, 2002, 02:34 AM
i think its the largerL2 cache. Remember when Powermac G3's and G4's had 1 full MB of L2 cache, now they have 256k, you could put 4 256k just to make 1MB, i thought it would get bigger not smaller, also I think the ibbok has a better or potenetially better memory bus ach. Any way i wish apple would bring back the 1MB L2 cahche, that would really speed things up. athlon has 384, P4 has 512K. the G4 used to be top dog on L2 now its top dog on L3 which is not as importatant or needed but much cheaper. let the consumer macs get some L3 cache and give the pros a full MB L2 inaddidtion to L2

zimv20
Dec 10, 2002, 02:47 AM
Originally posted by MacBandit


I agree the iBook is a great computer and very under rated. It does very well and the G3 Sahara is owed a lot of credit.

right on. mine is plenty fast for my portable needs. why pay more?

zimv20
Dec 10, 2002, 05:55 AM
Originally posted by pnz999
Is it wise to get a G3 machine? if everything in OS X relies on the velocity engine.

relax. my ibook/800 is doing great.

my desktop is a dual g4/500 and i'm not noticing a slowdown when i go to the ibook.

maka
Dec 10, 2002, 06:17 AM
You can find new test of the ibook vs tibook vs dual 1ghz g4 here...

What I don't understand is why the ibook 800 is slower at some tasks than the 700... Specially with the game tests, the difference in the 3D card should make it faster (I would think) And with disk related tasks it's a bit unsettleing...

Also, where can you find the ibook hack for the external monitor? This can be a big buying factor for me :)

MacBandit
Dec 10, 2002, 10:03 AM
Originally posted by maka


What I don't understand is why the ibook 800 is slower at some tasks than the 700... Specially with the game tests, the difference in the 3D card should make it faster (I would think) And with disk related tasks it's a bit unsettleing...

Also, where can you find the ibook hack for the external monitor? This can be a big buying factor for me :)

It's going to test slower at games tests. It was probably a 14" so therefore the games were ran at a larger screen size and performed slower. These test sites are notorious for not testing equally take them with a huge pinch of salt. Also from the tests I would conclude that the new 800 has a slower hard drive. I know this is the case with the new TiBooks maybe it's also the case with the iBooks.

Chryx
Dec 10, 2002, 10:08 AM
Originally posted by MacBandit


It's going to test slower at games tests. It was probably a 14" so therefore the games were ran at a larger screen size and performed slower.

The native resolution of the 12.1" iBooks screen and the 14" iBooks screen is identical IIRC (1024x768) therefore it should make no difference to benchmarks, the pixels are bigger on the 14" screen, that's all (nothing to do with the video acceleration hardware whatsoever.)

MacBandit
Dec 10, 2002, 10:19 AM
Originally posted by Chryx


The native resolution of the 12.1" iBooks screen and the 14" iBooks screen is identical IIRC (1024x768) therefore it should make no difference to benchmarks, the pixels are bigger on the 14" screen, that's all (nothing to do with the video acceleration hardware whatsoever.)

Well what kind of ************ is that? I can't believe I've never noticed that. What joke. Who the hell would want the 14" then unless your blind as a bat. Sometimes Apple does some really wacked out things.:eek: :rolleyes:

daveg5
Dec 10, 2002, 01:50 PM
http://www.xlr8yourmac.com/systems/ibook_dual_display_mods.html#storytop
Dont have an ibook so i could not try it but here is the link.
I think apple put a slower disk drive in also

ewinemiller
Dec 10, 2002, 02:34 PM
Originally posted by jettredmont


For instance, if AppX is doing a bunch of integer math, and AppY wants to do a bunch of floating point math, it would be really cool if the CPU would give it's integer units to AppX and its FP Units to AppY simultaneously. But that's simply not the case.



Actually this is exactly what the hyperthreads on the new 3ghz P4 do. In some applications there have been performance gains around 30%, some applications are a little slower because of more contention on the cpu cache. I'm told it really shines when you are using more than one application. AMD made some noise about supporting the technology in future chips if it takes off and I suspect that other chip makers will embrace the technology down the road.

JSRockit
Dec 10, 2002, 05:47 PM
Originally posted by Chryx


The native resolution of the 12.1" iBooks screen and the 14" iBooks screen is identical IIRC (1024x768) therefore it should make no difference to benchmarks, the pixels are bigger on the 14" screen, that's all (nothing to do with the video acceleration hardware whatsoever.)

Yep...this is why most people feel the 14" iBook should be discontinued. There is no real advantage...except a littel battery life or enlarged pixels for weak eyed people...like myself, but I use the 12"-er fine (I have these new things called glasses).

Chryx
Dec 10, 2002, 05:59 PM
Originally posted by JSRockit


Yep...this is why most people feel the 14" iBook should be discontinued. There is no real advantage...except a littel battery life or enlarged pixels for weak eyed people...like myself, but I use the 12"-er fine (I have these new things called glasses).

Personally I think they should replace them both with a 1152x864 13" screen ;)

JSRockit
Dec 10, 2002, 07:08 PM
Originally posted by Chryx


Personally I think they should replace them both with a 1152x864 13" screen ;)

I'd take it...make it a widescreen though.

arnette
Dec 10, 2002, 07:22 PM
Originally posted by JSRockit


...make it a widescreen though.


oooh baby.... now you're talking. SE iBook.

JSRockit
Dec 10, 2002, 08:07 PM
and bring back the graphite color for the iBook SE...and 768 max ram.

pnz999
Dec 10, 2002, 11:12 PM
what about a race between a transmeta crusoe 1 GHz [128KB L1, 512 L3, system bus 133 MHz] to an 800 GHz iBook [system bus 100 MHz]? which one is a better performer?

daveg5
Dec 11, 2002, 12:43 AM
Originally posted by JSRockit
and bring back the graphite color for the iBook SE...and 768 max ram.
I actually like the black of the old powerbook, titanium would be good except for the paint and flimsiness and the sony 505 looks great white although goodlooking is getting old with no option to balance it out. i want saphire blue but black will be color. some japanese users have custom painted motifs, but i forgot the site

daveg5
Dec 11, 2002, 12:55 AM
Originally posted by JSRockit
and bring back the graphite color for the iBook SE...and 768 max ram.
I actually like the black of the old powerbook, titanium would be good except for the paint and flimsiness and the sony 505 looks great white although goodlooking is getting old with no option to balance it out. i want saphire blue but black will be color. some japanese users have custom painted motifs, but i forgot the site

MacBandit
Dec 11, 2002, 12:56 AM
Originally posted by daveg5

I actually like the black of the old powerbook, titanium would be good except for the paint and flimsiness and the sony 505 looks great white although goodlooking is getting old with no option to balance it out. i want saphire blue but black will be color. some japanese users have custom painted motifs, but i forgot the site


How about an aluminum case that's anodized. Anodized finishes are exrtremely hard and very good looking.

daveg5
Dec 11, 2002, 01:28 AM
Originally posted by MacBandit



How about an aluminum case that's anodized. Anodized finishes are exrtremely hard and very good looking.
That'll work along with brushed stianless steel or clear surrounded by chrome hilighted by gold and platinum trimming buts lets make it easy interchangable skins.
i guess we can dream

adamcoop
Dec 11, 2002, 01:37 AM
Originally posted by MacBandit



How about an aluminum case that's anodized. Anodized finishes are exrtremely hard and very good looking.

Unless it's hard-anodized, the finish will wear off very quickly, and look very cheap.
Mountain biking went through a purple anodized fad in the early 90's - that was quickly replaced by a powder coated fad. The powder coating was much more robust, especially in places where there was a lot of contact, i.e. handlebars etc... the anodizing would wear off in these places within a few months.
The same thing would apply for laptops.

MacBandit
Dec 11, 2002, 01:39 AM
Originally posted by adamcoop


Unless it's hard-anodized, the finish will wear off very quickly, and look very cheap.
Mountain biking went through a purple anodized fad in the early 90's - that was quickly replaced by a powder coated fad. The powder coating was much more robust, especially in places where there was a lot of contact, i.e. handlebars etc... the anodizing would wear off in these places within a few months.
The same thing would apply for laptops.

You think hard anodizing would wear off? The problem with powder coating is if the material is flexible it pops off.

daveg5
Dec 11, 2002, 01:43 AM
Originally posted by adamcoop


Unless it's hard-anodized, the finish will wear off very quickly, and look very cheap.
Mountain biking went through a purple anodized fad in the early 90's - that was quickly replaced by a powder coated fad. The powder coating was much more robust, especially in places where there was a lot of contact, i.e. handlebars etc... the anodizing would wear off in these places within a few months.
The same thing would apply for laptops.

that will work too got any pictures, I hope they will have a 2 button pad and scroll strip or wheel like all of the pc lap tops and a more robust looking keyboard and of couse a min 1GB ram

adamcoop
Dec 11, 2002, 01:57 AM
Originally posted by pnz999
what about a race between a transmeta crusoe 1 GHz [128KB L1, 512 L3, system bus 133 MHz] to an 800 GHz iBook [system bus 100 MHz]? which one is a better performer?

The Transmeta is an x86 chip, and has almost twice as many pipeline stages as the G3 (7 vs. 4).

Without going into too much tech talk, in most instances, the lower the number of pipeline stages, the faster the data can get through the chip.

The other thing i'd be weary of is how comatible with Windows the Transmeta chip is. There was problems with Cyrix chips not being 100% compatible with Windows/Intel.

Anyone else that add any light on this?

Here's a site that compares the Transmeta to a PIII-m.
http://friday.editthispage.com/stories/storyReader$518

"TM5400 supports only MMX" This takes it to sub-Pentium 3 levels as far as multimedia is concerned.

adamcoop
Dec 11, 2002, 02:00 AM
Originally posted by MacBandit


You think hard anodizing would wear off? The problem with powder coating is if the material is flexible it pops off.

No, hard anodizing would be okay. Last time I looked though, you're fairly limited to colour.

Aren't the PowerBooks actually coated? The only parts of my PowerBook where the paint's coming off is the on carbon edges, and on the hinges.

JSRockit
Dec 11, 2002, 04:11 PM
Anything other than Titanium is going to add weight to the PB. That would suck...however...I believe Apple will do something different due to poor airport reception, heat issues, paint issues, and durability concerns.

MacBandit
Dec 12, 2002, 01:38 AM
Originally posted by JSRockit
Anything other than Titanium is going to add weight to the PB. That would suck...however...I believe Apple will do something different due to poor airport reception, heat issues, paint issues, and durability concerns.

As far as I know Titanium can be anodized.

jefhatfield
Dec 12, 2002, 12:48 PM
Originally posted by MacBandit


As far as I know Titanium can be anodized.

red or blk with low yield so it might up the production cost of the whole product

but black would look most professional...it's still the standard color for a laptop

sj originally wanted this

JSRockit
Dec 12, 2002, 05:37 PM
Originally posted by jefhatfield

black would look most professional...it's still the standard color for a laptop


Professional for who?

daveg5
Dec 12, 2002, 06:27 PM
Originally posted by JSRockit
Anything other than Titanium is going to add weight to the PB. That would suck...however...I believe Apple will do something different due to poor airport reception, heat issues, paint issues, and durability concerns.
Add weight already 5.9 pounds is not bad shiny laguar car type black paint 6 coats like lexus and heat resistant with a glowing blue Apple logo 4 buuton pad with scroll strip, Lcd info viewable when closed to play mp3s cds and dvds, along with a small control remote, 17" wide screen, Larger keyboard, 2 GB ddr, 167 bus, 1.4 g4 7457, 512L2 cache 1MB L3 cache, new antenae and quiet cooling system, 2 independant firewire2 and 2 independand usb2 port, Dolby digital in and out 24/96, Midi port, bluetooth, Longer battery life, lighted keyboard and everything that is on the current titanium and a $2499 price tag

Chryx
Dec 12, 2002, 06:30 PM
Originally posted by adamcoop
The Transmeta is an x86 chip, and has almost twice as many pipeline stages as the G3 (7 vs. 4).

Without going into too much tech talk, in most instances, the lower the number of pipeline stages, the faster the data can get through the chip.

Counting pipeline stages is a VERY poor indicator of performance, eg, the PowerPC 970 is 14 (?) stages deep, and yet it's per clock performance should be ~2x the 7455s, the Athlon is a 12-stage design and it's as fast or faster per clock than the 7-stage 7455 if you leave Altivec out of the equation (it also clocks 1Ghz higher... it is on .13 now though, a shrink would probably gain ~300-400Mhz for the G4)

However, the Transmeta chip will get smacked around in a benchmark war against the 750FX simply because the 750FX is a hardware processor, the Crusoe is a JIT emulation engine with a dedicated bit of hardware to run of (if you see what I mean.)

JSRockit
Dec 12, 2002, 07:10 PM
Originally posted by daveg5

Add weight already 5.9 pounds is not bad shiny laguar car type black paint 6 coats like lexus and heat resistant with a glowing blue Apple logo 4 buuton pad with scroll strip, Lcd info viewable when closed to play mp3s cds and dvds, along with a small control remote, 17" wide screen, Larger keyboard, 2 GB ddr, 167 bus, 1.4 g4 7457, 512L2 cache 1MB L3 cache, new antenae and quiet cooling system, 2 independant firewire2 and 2 independand usb2 port, Dolby digital in and out 24/96, Midi port, bluetooth, Longer battery life, lighted keyboard and everything that is on the current titanium and a $2499 price tag

Is that it? So basically you want a Apple desktop replacement? Part of the TiBooks appeal is that it is 5.4lbs, but still has a 15.2" screen. The computer you described would be 7lbs at least... not to mention it wouldn't come out til at least 2004 with most of the specs you want.

daveg5
Dec 12, 2002, 08:40 PM
a metal lighter and stronger then Titanium, 3 year Apple Care Warranty standard. Upgradeable cpu ziff and upgradeble video zif 128MB Radeon 9700PRO, disk drive and battery leds, a suite of Sega Games ported from the Xbox and DOOM the Game., I will go up to $3100.
Of course I am crazy!

MacBandit
Dec 13, 2002, 01:41 AM
Originally posted by daveg5
a metal lighter and stronger then Titanium, 3 year Apple Care Warranty standard. Upgradeable cpu ziff and upgradeble video zif 128MB Radeon 9700PRO, disk drive and battery leds, a suite of Sega Games ported from the Xbox and DOOM the Game., I will go up to $3100.
Of course I am crazy!

Oh yeah your bringing up what I've wanted all along. A Byrillium case. Lighter and stronger then Titanium. Cheap too (hahahahahahahaha.....).

jettredmont
Dec 13, 2002, 11:44 AM
Originally posted by Chryx

However, the Transmeta chip will get smacked around in a benchmark war against the 750FX simply because the 750FX is a hardware processor, the Crusoe is a JIT emulation engine with a dedicated bit of hardware to run of (if you see what I mean.)

Just wanted to clarify for those as dense as myself that "JIT" has nothing to do with Java in this context ...

The Crusoe does softened (ie, much hardware but a bit software driven) instruction translation from x86 to its own machine code. If I recall correctly, the Crusoe internal code is CISC as well, which along with the slightly-softened translation engine differentiates it from the full-hardware x86-to-internal-RISC translation units on the Pentium Pro-Pentium 4 and Athlon processors.

The softened translation engine is a feature that would allow the Crusoe to, without a massive hardware reconfiguration, interpret other machine code instruction sets as well as x86. That is, in theory. In practice, I think x86 is the only supported instruction set, and I suspect that that is because it is technologically unfeasible to implement many other instruction sets in the current hardware (like PPC). But that's an uninformed guess.

On topic? Hardly. But, just felt like sharing ... :)

Chryx
Dec 13, 2002, 12:27 PM
Originally posted by jettredmont
If I recall correctly, the Crusoe internal code is CISC as well,

It's more VLIW, or maybe even SIMD..

it apparently has a hardware x86 MMU though (hence it not being totally software reconfigurable)

jefhatfield
Dec 13, 2002, 07:18 PM
Originally posted by JSRockit


Professional for who?

i guess its just what people seemed used to

i kind of liked macs when they came in all those colors and i miss that...i have a rev a blueberry ibook i use everyday

i guess apple has opted for a more subdued look these last few years

JSRockit
Dec 14, 2002, 06:21 AM
Originally posted by jefhatfield


i guess its just what people seemed used to

i kind of liked macs when they came in all those colors and i miss that...i have a rev a blueberry ibook i use everyday

i guess apple has opted for a more subdued look these last few years

Exactly. You are a professional if you make money with your Apple. Plenty of professional musicians I am sure love the current apple machines... and, I bet, would love to see some colors. Black is boring, but I bet Apple could make black look good. Not too many suit and tie types use Apples I would imagine.

jefhatfield
Dec 14, 2002, 10:02 AM
Originally posted by JSRockit


Exactly. You are a professional if you make money with your Apple. Plenty of professional musicians I am sure love the current apple machines... and, I bet, would love to see some colors. Black is boring, but I bet Apple could make black look good. Not too many suit and tie types use Apples I would imagine.

i think with the corporate types, it's a dell love fest:p

JSRockit
Dec 14, 2002, 10:17 AM
Originally posted by jefhatfield


i think with the corporate types, it's a dell love fest:p

Yep...the dell specs aren't bad, but they weigh too much, and are so damn ugly. Corporate all the way.

miss5ally
Dec 25, 2005, 08:10 PM
Well..I'm sort of new to Mac. New in the kind of way that I was brought up in a PC-loving family and wasn't introduced to Macs until this past year (now I'm in love)

I'm getting my first mac, and I'm going ibook since i'm the student-type that needs a durable not-too-fancy machine. it needs to be mac because my main hobby is video. i take an advanced video class that uses G4 machines but i've started work out of school in addition to in-school projects and desperately need a computer for in-the-field work.

i don't talk mac like a video-savvy should, but i know what i absolutely need. i need something fast and something super cheap (ha.ha...relatively, of course), i don't want to short change myself, but i don't want to get something i don't really need.

do i need a g3, or will i be robbing myself if I don't get a g4?

finchna
Dec 25, 2005, 08:25 PM
You can't get a G3 laptop unless it's used, and I'd not suggest that for video. A G4 will allow you to do video, but if it's a major part of your life I'd recommend a G5 tower--one of the new dual-cores or an older (and reduced price dual chip). Do you need to create/edit video or have access to it on the road? A less expensive laptop would easily display video created on a faster tower--if video work is your life a tower would be helpful. You might also want to wait for the Intel iBooks to arrive in January to see if they have dual cores and if their processing power is increased substantially over the current G4s. If so, get one, if not, get a G4 at reduced pricing.


Well..I'm sort of new to Mac. New in the kind of way that I was brought up in a PC-loving family and wasn't introduced to Macs until this past year (now I'm in love)

I'm getting my first mac, and I'm going ibook since i'm the student-type that needs a durable not-too-fancy machine. it needs to be mac because my main hobby is video. i take an advanced video class that uses G4 machines but i've started work out of school in addition to in-school projects and desperately need a computer for in-the-field work.

i don't talk mac like a video-savvy should, but i know what i absolutely need. i need something fast and something super cheap (ha.ha...relatively, of course), i don't want to short change myself, but i don't want to get something i don't really need.

do i need a g3, or will i be robbing myself if I don't get a g4?

California
Dec 25, 2005, 10:07 PM
Well..I'm sort of new to Mac. New in the kind of way that I was brought up in a PC-loving family and wasn't introduced to Macs until this past year (now I'm in love)

I'm getting my first mac, and I'm going ibook since i'm the student-type that needs a durable not-too-fancy machine. it needs to be mac because my main hobby is video. i take an advanced video class that uses G4 machines but i've started work out of school in addition to in-school projects and desperately need a computer for in-the-field work.

i don't talk mac like a video-savvy should, but i know what i absolutely need. i need something fast and something super cheap (ha.ha...relatively, of course), i don't want to short change myself, but i don't want to get something i don't really need.

do i need a g3, or will i be robbing myself if I don't get a g4?

Miss5ally: the post you somehow found was three years old.

Do not get a G3 ibook unless you only have about 250 dollars to spend and then I would get a G3 500mhz iBook and not spend a penny more on it.

Go to the APple page and get a refurbed 1.2ghz or 1.33 ghz iBook for either 699 or $799. You will be VERY VERY happy. Apple phased out G3s two or three years ago, honey. (This is unless you want an old G3 iMac desktop that still performs pretty well. Laptops don't hold up because of all the moving and shaking after three, four, five years. But the old iMac G3 desktops are pretty stable workhorses for about a hundred bucks plus memory because they just SAT on the tabletop for years. That may be an entree to Mac for you if you are very very poor. )