PDA

View Full Version : why ibooks have no superdrive option?


toughboy
May 11, 2003, 06:27 AM
I want to buy an iBook, after a long time for deciding, I choose iBook but then I saw that no superdrive is available for ibook.. not even for the 14" one..

is it because superdrives need more system resource, or is it just a marketing decision that apple gave?...

benixau
May 11, 2003, 07:20 AM
marketing

DavidCL23
May 11, 2003, 08:00 AM
Well its not marketing directly, its b/c it has a G3 processor, but the only reason it only has a G3 processor is marketing, I mean sereously how much more would it cost for them to put in a slow clock speed G4 into the ibook?

maracz
May 11, 2003, 08:17 AM
Originally posted by DavidCL23
Well its not marketing directly, its b/c it has a G3 processor, but the only reason it only has a G3 processor is marketing, I mean sereously how much more would it cost for them to put in a slow clock speed G4 into the ibook?

Well I personally would prefer a fast G3 than a slow G4. But anyways it wouldn't COST them much in production, it would COST them alot in profits. For instance a small Pepsi and a large Pespi cost the same to produce. And yet one is expensive because it just makes common sense. There is a market for a low cost computer, but they certainly aren't going to put their fastest processors in their low end units....no matter if they cost the same to build.

But seriosuly the G4 is not good laptop chip. It's better for people who need a dektop replacement because they are travelling alot.

celaurie
May 11, 2003, 09:01 AM
I think there's a clear line being drawn between the iBook and the AluBook. The fromer is more for the education/home use and the latter is for professional/work.

Is a superdrive all that important? I mean, I'm more than happy with my 18 month old iBook with her Combo drive. :rolleyes:

phantommaul
May 11, 2003, 09:20 AM
its soo simple if apple sells ibooks with superdrive for about 1500 or maybe 1200 no one would buy pb 12" 's they have to draw the line when selling products to different consumers.

and there are also technological restrictions. there is no g3 apple which has superdrive.

but when the 970 ppc come out the iBooks will use G4 processors and they will be superdrive integrated. but again apple has to draw the line and they would use 8x or 10x superdrives in 970, while the ibook g4 users would have maximum of 4x and so.

t^3
May 12, 2003, 01:59 AM
MCE (http://www.mcetech.com) just came out with a DVD-R upgrade for a lot of the modern Macs out there, including the iBook, cost depending on which Mac, but it's $449 for the iBook. Personally, I'd just get a 12" AlBook instead with a SuperDrive.

Apple][Forever
May 12, 2003, 04:21 AM
MPEG2 encoding takes much, much longer on a G3. The encoder must rely heavily on Altivec (or know enough to throw in a bunch of NOOPs if it detects a G3 ;))

Oid
May 12, 2003, 05:09 AM
I was in the market soon fo replacing my slightly aging ibook with either a new ibook or a powerbook.

However after seeing the new ibooks in stores over the weekend I've gone right off it. It now looks rather tacky with its entirely white (and slightly cheap looking) white plastic. Nowhere near as nice as my ibook, with its superior white/semi-transparent exterior and silver interior :(

If apple did this to push people to buying powerbooks then they've succeeded.

maracz
May 12, 2003, 06:10 AM
Originally posted by phantommaul
its soo simple if apple sells ibooks with superdrive for about 1500 or maybe 1200 no one would buy pb 12" 's they have to draw the line when selling products to different consumers.

and there are also technological restrictions. there is no g3 apple which has superdrive.

but when the 970 ppc come out the iBooks will use G4 processors and they will be superdrive integrated. but again apple has to draw the line and they would use 8x or 10x superdrives in 970, while the ibook g4 users would have maximum of 4x and so.

iBook wil never have a G4.

It's not very mobile and it's already maxed out almost completly. Apple would have to be crazzy to first of all put a horrible chip (for laptops at least) into their low-end portables and second of all sign unto a processor which has no future.

gambit
May 12, 2003, 06:48 AM
Its cause iDVD wont even install on iBooks... let alone burn a DVD in under 6 hours... I tried it once with an external DVD burner... to fill up HALF of it took over 5 hours, and that was just data... :rolleyes: :( Wish I could burn the family movies... Ha... ben de Izmirliyim :P

cb911
May 12, 2003, 06:57 AM
i guess that it is mostly marketing, but if you're going to really use a superdrive, then you'll need the power of a G4 and all of it's altivec enhanced goodness. :D

G4scott
May 12, 2003, 07:44 AM
The main reason is because of the iBook's G3. Now, with rumors of an alti-vec enhanced G3, you might actually see a G3 iBook that can burn DVD's at a good speed. The G4 also might have some life left, but Motorola would almost have to redesign the processor to consume less power and put out less heat...

You might see G4's in iBooks, or faster G3's with alti-vec.

Either way, the G3 just doesn't have enough power to do the encoding needed in a reasonable amount of time...

ftaok
May 12, 2003, 08:36 AM
Originally posted by G4scott
The G4 also might have some life left, but Motorola would almost have to redesign the processor to consume less power and put out less heat...
That would be the 7457/7447 G4. These are built on a .13 micron process and are slated for relase later this year. The 1 ghz chip puts out less than 10 watts. That should be cool enough for an iBook.

maracz
May 12, 2003, 11:06 AM
Originally posted by ftaok
That would be the 7457/7447 G4. These are built on a .13 micron process and are slated for relase later this year. The 1 ghz chip puts out less than 10 watts. That should be cool enough for an iBook.

I still doubt it. Escpecially with all the rumors of the new G3 chipsets. I seriously doubt they'd put in a G4.

tazo
May 12, 2003, 11:13 AM
despite its slowness, I think if someone knowingly wants to make a dvd on an ibook, and knows that it will take a while, they should have the BTO option to do so; just my $0.02

Jaykay
May 12, 2003, 11:14 AM
Originally posted by maracz
I still doubt it. Escpecially with all the rumors of the new G3 chipsets. I seriously doubt they'd put in a G4.

I agree, i dont see apple putting a G4 in the iBooks, espeecially seeing that its almost dead. I think that apple will want to get away from motorola as soon as they can and not put it into new models as its beginning to max out.

ftaok
May 12, 2003, 12:58 PM
Originally posted by Jaykay
I agree, i dont see apple putting a G4 in the iBooks, espeecially seeing that its almost dead. I think that apple will want to get away from motorola as soon as they can and not put it into new models as its beginning to max out. I respect that you doubt that Apple would use these 7457s, but I have to disagree with you.

Assuming that Apple wants to continue the iBook line after the Powerbook line goes to the 970, it makes sense to use the G4 in the iBook. They already have the motherboard designs for the G4, so it makes financial sense to use the 'tried and true' G4 for the iBook.

As far as the rumored G3 updates. I don't think Apple will make use of these since they'll need to design a new motherboard to take advantage of the 200mhz FSB. Why would Apple want to spend money on that endeavor when they can take "off the shelf" parts and cobble together a G4 iBook?

I suspect that when the Power lines go 970, the i lines will go G4-7457.

cb911
May 13, 2003, 01:00 AM
Originally posted by tazo
despite its slowness, I think if someone knowingly wants to make a dvd on an ibook, and knows that it will take a while, they should have the BTO option to do so; just my $0.02

another reason they don't put a SuperDrive in the iBooks is because of differentiation between the consumer a pro lines. if you want a SuperDrive Apple makes you go for a Pro model, and so they make more money that way. one of the major selling-points of the PowerBooks are that they have the option of a SuperDrive. Apple would lose a significant amount of sales if they made the SuperDrive available in the iBooks.

cb911
May 13, 2003, 01:00 AM
sorry for the double post... i'm on some cruddy PC's at TAFE and my hands have all of a sudden gone useless after using the 3 y.o. keyboards and mouse...:o

celaurie
May 13, 2003, 02:22 AM
Originally posted by cb911
another reason they don't put a SuperDrive in the iBooks is because of differentiation between the consumer a pro lines. if you want a SuperDrive Apple makes you go for a Pro model, and so they make more money that way. one of the major selling-points of the PowerBooks are that they have the option of a SuperDrive. Apple would lose a significant amount of sales if they made the SuperDrive available in the iBooks.

Didn't I say that already? :rolleyes:

"I think there's a clear line being drawn between the iBook and the AluBook. The fromer is more for the education/home use and the latter is for professional/work."

cb911
May 13, 2003, 05:35 AM
yes celaurie, you did say that.... but i said... other important stuff.

there is a clear line, but some might not realise how important the SuperDrive is in defining that line. just like a G3 with Alti-Vec is (apparently) a G4, an iBook with a SuperDrive would be a PowerBook.

celaurie
May 13, 2003, 12:53 PM
Originally posted by cb911
yes celaurie, you did say that.... but i said... other important stuff.

there is a clear line, but some might not realise how important the SuperDrive is in defining that line. just like a G3 with Alti-Vec is (apparently) a G4, an iBook with a SuperDrive would be a PowerBook.

And your point is? ;)

gambit
May 30, 2003, 01:08 AM
another reason they don't put a SuperDrive in the iBooks is because of differentiation between the consumer a pro lines. if you want a SuperDrive Apple makes you go for a Pro model, and so they make more money that way. one of the major selling-points of the PowerBooks are that they have the option of a SuperDrive. Apple would lose a significant amount of sales if they made the SuperDrive available in the iBooks.
If this is true, then why does the eMac have a Superdrive option?:confused:

Wardofsky
May 30, 2003, 02:13 AM
Originally posted by gambit
If this is true, then why does the eMac have a Superdrive option?:confused:

Well, there is iDVD and DVD Studio Pro (I think) and the pro-consumer difference is obvious.

I don't think it's for pro's only but the processor speed of a G3 can't handle the burning.

Finiksa
May 30, 2003, 07:02 AM
Originally posted by ftaok
As far as the rumored G3 updates. I don't think Apple will make use of these since they'll need to design a new motherboard to take advantage of the 200mhz FSB. Why would Apple want to spend money on that endeavor when they can take "off the shelf" parts and cobble together a G4 iBook?

I suspect that when the Power lines go 970, the i lines will go G4-7457.

The G3 already supports a 200mhz bus Apple would have done development on this. They just wouldn't have released it to compete with the PowerBooks. They won't bring out a G4 iBook, the G4 is an old inefficient design, A G3 with Altivec has a future.

Plus Apple want to get the hell away from Moto so they can sue the crap out of them.

ftaok
May 30, 2003, 07:32 AM
Originally posted by Finiksa
The G3 already supports a 200mhz bus Apple would have done development on this. They just wouldn't have released it to compete with the PowerBooks. They won't bring out a G4 iBook, the G4 is an old inefficient design, A G3 with Altivec has a future.

Plus Apple want to get the hell away from Moto so they can sue the crap out of them. The current G3 doesn't support the 200mhz FSB. The 1.2ghz+ G3 are the ones with the 200mhz FSB. Apple would not have designed a motherboard for a chip that they won't use.

BTW, the whole Apple sues Moto over breach of contract is BS. That's just a rumor that Macbidoulle started and it doesn't make any sense.

yzedf
May 30, 2003, 08:16 AM
Originally posted by G4scott
The main reason is because of the iBook's G3. Now, with rumors of an alti-vec enhanced G3, you might actually see a G3 iBook that can burn DVD's at a good speed. The G4 also might have some life left, but Motorola would almost have to redesign the processor to consume less power and put out less heat...

You might see G4's in iBooks, or faster G3's with alti-vec.

Either way, the G3 just doesn't have enough power to do the encoding needed in a reasonable amount of time...
There is plenty of power in the current G3's... it is the decision to make DVD burning a Altivec intensive app that killed it for the iBook. After all, it can burn a CD at 24x now...

Finiksa
May 30, 2003, 08:18 AM
Originally posted by ftaok
The current G3 doesn't support the 200mhz FSB. The 1.2ghz+ G3 are the ones with the 200mhz FSB. Apple would not have designed a motherboard for a chip that they won't use.

Not true, the 750CXe used in the G3 iMacs was capable of a 133Mhz bus, The 750FX used in the current iBooks is capable of a 200mhz bus (see attached image) Apple haven't implemented these speeds to prevent competition with G4's crippled bus speed. PPC 750 documents referenced are available here (http://www-3.ibm.com/chips/techlib/techlib.nsf/products/PowerPC_750FX_Microprocessor)

Whether or not Apple will take legal action against Moto is can be debated ad infinitum. But considering Apple's history of litigation and Moto's breach of contract, I see it being highly likely.

ftaok
May 30, 2003, 08:26 AM
Originally posted by yzedf
There is plenty of power in the current G3's... it is the decision to make DVD burning a Altivec intensive app that killed it for the iBook. After all, it can burn a CD at 24x now... It's not the DVD burning that is Altivec enhanced. It's the mpeg-1 encoding that chokes the G3. The G3 is capable of encoding mpeg-1, but it's takes forever. That's something that Apple didn't want a consumer to see. That's why iDVD requires a G4. Note that there are other DVD encoding apps out there that run on G3s.

Originally posted by Finiksa
Not true, the 750CXe used in the G3 iMacs was capable of a 133Mhz bus, The 750FX used in the current iBooks is capable of a 200mhz bus (see attached image) Apple haven't implemented these speeds to prevent competition with G4's crippled bus speed. PPC 750 documents referenced are available here

Whether or not Apple will take legal action against Moto is can be debated ad infinitum. But considering Apple's history of litigation and Moto's breach of contract, I see it being highly likely. Regardless of what that table says, there are two versions of the 750FX chip. One that tops out at 1.2 ghz and the one that goes all the way to 2ghz. The 2ghz model is the one with the 200mhz bus. The 133mhz bus version is the one that apple uses in the iBook.

As for whether Moto breached a contract or not is ridiculous. The rumor is that Moto broke the contract because it failed to give Apple sufficient (1-yr?) notice that they were scrapping the G5 program. How exactly do you give someone 1 yr notice that you're not continuing development of a chip? Is Moto supposed to tell Apple, "Hey, we don't think we can make any money with the G5, so we're gonna shut it down in a year." Isn't that ridiculous? When you shut it down, you shut it down. You don't continue developing it just to meet a contract obligation. That's why there IS NO contract that demands Moto to give notice to Apple.

Finiksa
May 30, 2003, 08:50 AM
Originally posted by ftaok
Regardless of what that table says, there are two versions of the 750FX chip. One that tops out at 1.2 ghz and the one that goes all the way to 2ghz. The 2ghz model is the one with the 200mhz bus. The 133mhz bus version is the one that apple uses in the iBook.


That's ridiculous IBM have barely been able to get the 750FX to reach 1Ghz, that's why they're developing the 750GX that is expected top out at 1.4Ghz. I sincerely doubt they would develop a new chip that will reach speeds 600Mhz lower than their current offerings and otherwise have similar specs.

ftaok
May 30, 2003, 09:06 AM
Originally posted by Finiksa
That's ridiculous IBM have barely been able to get the 750FX to reach 1Ghz, that's why they're developing the 750GX that is expected top out at 1.4Ghz. I sincerely doubt they would develop a new chip that will reach speeds 600Mhz lower than their current offerings and otherwise have similar specs. OK, here's what I've heard (and truly believe).

When IBM announced the 750FX, they were planning on getting it to 2ghz and starting around 700mhz. The 700mhz chip supported a bus speed of 133mhz. This is the chip that Apple currently uses at 900mhz. They've had 1ghz versions of this chip available for a while now (4-6 months), but no one uses it. The plan for the 750FX is/was to get it up to 2ghz. Starting with the 1.2ghz version, the FSB could be cranked up to 200mhz.

The table that you showed listed maximum FSB speeds of 200mhz. This is referencing the 2nd version of the 750FX. The current 750FX is capable of 133mhz.

Now, as far as the rumors of the 750GX, this could be IBM's rethinking of the 750FX, rev2. Since it's obvious that Apple isn't ready to use faster 750FX's, IBM may have gone back to the design stage for the 750FX, rev2 and bumped it up some more. Hence, they've changed the name to 750GX.

As for the speed of the GX topping out at 1.4ghz, perhaps Apple has told IBM that they don't want to confuse consumers with GX's that are faster than 970s. Who knows.

My original point was that the current 750FX's aren't crippled (on the FSB) from 200mhz to 100mhz. They are crippled from 133 to 100.

eric_n_dfw
May 30, 2003, 09:55 AM
iDVD won't even install on a G3 because of how slow the encoding would be. (Apple doesn't want to hear the complaints I would presume)
From what I've read, CaptyDVD and BitVice encoders work, but also are exteemly slow.
From http://www.xlr8yourmac.com/archives/feb03/022803.html
CaptyDVD and BitVice each support G3's, although I really don't recommend it since you might need to let your machine encode from Friday night to Monday morning just for one or two hours of video. Consider a G4 CPU upgrade or a real cheap used Mac that would do nothing but encode.
Read my sig line - this issue (encoding/rendering) is why it's been there for so long! (From when I upgraded my old B&W with a G4 ZIF and Final Cut Pro 2 took off like a banchee!)

Pipian
May 30, 2003, 10:54 AM
Is it really THAT slow?