PDA

View Full Version : iBook Rumors Persist...


arn
May 7, 2002, 12:50 AM
Powerpage persists (http://www.powerpage.org/story.lasso?newsID=9326) with rumors of iBook releases as early as this week... with the following specs:

* 600 and 800 MHz G3
* 100 MHz system bus across the line
* ATI Radeon Mobility (16 MB)
* 20 and 30 GB HDDs
* 12.1-inch and 14.1-inch displays
* possible resolution increase in the 14-inch model

TyleRomeo
May 7, 2002, 12:56 AM
sweet deal let everything come out before MWNY so its going to be all about the G5

Choppaface
May 7, 2002, 12:58 AM
only 16 megs in the grafix card? isnt that a ripoff considdering they won't benefeit from 10.2

jelloshotsrule
May 7, 2002, 02:00 AM
definitely seems a bit bad/odd that they'd upgrade and still use 16 when they say you need 32 for quartz extreme.

if this is true, then apple is being a bit dumb. they AT LEAST should have said "we are implementing a process for high end users which will unload the quartz from the cpu to the graphics card..." etc etc. rather than playing it off as though it's something everything will need.

then again, maybe they did, and we just didn't get quote by quote details...

Funkatation
May 7, 2002, 02:04 AM
before you jump the gun. it says...

*nVidia: GeForce2MX, GeForce3, GeForce4 Ti, GeForce4 or GeForce4MX. ATI: any AGP Radeon card. 32MB VRAM recommended for optimum performance.


it says 32 MB is recommended for the best performance.. not that its required. if the iBook comes with a radeon mobility, all is good. Hopefully they only require the radeon because of its speed, rather than its T&L capability, as the 16MB versions in the rev B powerbook, and upcoming iBook (possibility) don't have the T&L engine in them (equivalent to the radeon 7000)

jelloshotsrule
May 7, 2002, 02:06 AM
yeah, i know that it's "recommended" but at the same time you'd think all current hardware would be set up for the best possible performance.

then again, it's still the g3, where os x recommends g4 for best performance. so i'm figuring the difference will still be noticeable and significant.

sparkleytone
May 7, 2002, 03:57 AM
OMFG shutup about quartz extreme already. ITS NOT FOR EVERYONE. period. does EVERY mac have AltiVec??? When it was first introduced, did they?? New technologies require new hardware. So be quiet and be thankful they are catering to those who have great hardware.

kishba
May 7, 2002, 05:10 AM
way to go sparkleytone!!!

put'em in their place :)

peterjhill
May 7, 2002, 06:22 AM
Originally posted by sparkleytone
OMFG shutup about quartz extreme already. ITS NOT FOR EVERYONE. period. does EVERY mac have AltiVec??? When it was first introduced, did they?? New technologies require new hardware. So be quiet and be thankful they are catering to those who have great hardware.

Got to agree with you there, iBooks are "inexpensive" apple laptops. They need to supply some incentive for people to pay for the premium TiBook. 16MB of VRAM is a damn sight better than i had in my original Tang. iBook. It is enough to run alot of games. It would be nice if they had more VRAM, hell, I think that the TiBook should of had the option to get 64MB of VRAM (why doesn't Apple offer different VRAM options?). I hope that if they do only include 16MB that it will be enough for people to run Warcraft 3, or there will be alot of jealous kids out there ;-)

Macmaniac
May 7, 2002, 06:36 AM
These are supposed to be cheaper laptops. They are not going to have everything. IF you want the better performance buy a TiBook. I hope these rumors are true though.

Mr. Anderson
May 7, 2002, 07:25 AM
I've got the 667 TiPB, but when I use the System Profiler, I can't tell what I have as a graphics card except that its APG. Any know the answer to this one?

A@ron
May 7, 2002, 08:43 AM
Ok one thing first...

Quartz will not be any slower then it really is now reguardless of VPU or grafics card so quit your bi*chin already lol. Quartz extreame is really only for high end machines so that people who buy them for professional use won't feel dissapointed because Quartz is slow. I have an iBook (Indigo) and also the 10.2 "pre-release" given out at WWDC and it runs just like 10.1.5 does/will (depends on if you have it yet :rolleyes: ). However I think on my fathers work machines or DP 1Ghz it will cook.

two) The older TiBooks that were 550/667 had 16 MB (ATI Radeon 128 Mobility 4x AGP) as the video card which IMHO should work well enough so I wouldn't worry about it.

A@ron

djniche
May 7, 2002, 08:49 AM
Just makes sense that all the new models that will be coming out from apple will take advantage of the new technology we are going to see in MAC Os X 1.2.

More reason to think that Ibooks are going G4.

G3 along with Mac OS 9, ibook 12" and 15" Flats screens will be faded out. :D

Tokyo
May 7, 2002, 08:59 AM
Originally posted by dukestreet
I've got the 667 TiPB, but when I use the System Profiler, I can't tell what I have as a graphics card except that its APG. Any know the answer to this one?

Check the Developer Notes for G4 computers at:

http://developer.apple.com/techpubs/hardware/Developer_Notes/Macintosh_CPUs-G4/

Should have all the specs in there.


Tokyo

scorpion
May 7, 2002, 09:36 AM
I had some fun last night. I called MicroCenter (near me in Northern Virginia) and asked about 14" iBooks. Turns out they're out, and not expecting any more. The woman who helped me said the last time they "ran out" was when they were first introduced. I checked several other mail order sources and found the same thing, more or less.

So here's my theory:

1) Apple to no longer ship 14" iBooks at least in current config., but they will continue to offer a 14" version, probably because people are obsessed with screen size. They will increase resolution, or put in a slow G4, or both. (I can't see them releasing another G3 14" -- my guess is by putting in a G4 they get the "middle" of the market or the people who just like to spend money, but don't want to spring for a TiBook).

2) Apple to continue with the 12" iBook. It's got a lot of appeal. They'll bump this a few mhz but leave in a G3 which is just fine for most users.

Remember, most of the people on this board impress me as power users and may have higher expectations than the other 90% of the market. Most laptop users are doing fairly low-tech stuff (word processing, Internet, and spreadsheets) and don't necessarily "need" what you or I might "want".

Geert
May 7, 2002, 10:37 AM
Originally posted by Choppaface
only 16 megs in the grafix card? isnt that a ripoff considdering they won't benefeit from 10.2

I can only agree on this one, would be an unsmart move by Apple, iBook is the students' portable, and schools do not want to spend $$$ on setting up the network, so the ibook with only 16MB cannot benifit from Jagwire

TechLarry
May 7, 2002, 11:14 AM
Ok, so even yet-released new hardware won't even be compatible with QuartzExtreme in MacOS X 10.2?

Seems that various groups within Apple are not working towards common goals :(

TL

TechLarry
May 7, 2002, 11:17 AM
Originally posted by sparkleytone
OMFG shutup about quartz extreme already. ITS NOT FOR EVERYONE. period. does EVERY mac have AltiVec??? When it was first introduced, did they?? New technologies require new hardware. So be quiet and be thankful they are catering to those who have great hardware.

Quartz Extreme should not be looked at as a bonus for those with lots of cash, sparky.

QE is a truly necessary update to MacOS X. Apple HAS to get the interface/graphics performance of MacOS X up to par, and this is how they have chosen to do it.

I have no problem with their choice.

But to tell everyone to shut up, it's not for everyone is terribly short-sited.

TL

Jeffrey
May 7, 2002, 11:37 AM
Why does everyone automatically assume that Apple hasn't optimized OS X 10.2 for speed in any way other than using Quartz Extreme (which just isn't true) . And why does everyone automatically assume that the new iBook won't work with Quartz Extreme at all. Seems like everyone on this board is over reacting to something that no one even knows anything about yet.

According to Apple you need 32 MB for maximum performance, which, with a bit of reasoning, means that 16 MB will still use Quartz Extreme, just not as fast.

So basically the bottom of the line iBook won't be as fast as their top of the line TiBook - imagine that, a $1199 iBook not as fast as a $2499 Powerbook - what is Apple thinking? They must have gone crazy.

BobVB
May 7, 2002, 12:04 PM
Originally posted by TechLarry
QE is a truly necessary update to MacOS X.

Not at all - I've been using OS X now for a year with 400 and 500 machines and the interface speed is fine. AND we now know the 32mb isn't a hard line but just the amount for optimum benefit - the 16mb vram systems will probably do just fine and run faster than they would today without Quartz Extreme.

This is a scalable benefit with the more expensive systems/cards getting greater benefit, just the way ALL video cards have worked since the dawn of computer history :)

People whining about this makes as much sense as it would for G3 purchasers whining they aren't getting the Altivec benefit. Or single processor systems buyers complaining they aren't getting MP benefits.

I am glad they are putting the feature in the software and although my current iBook won't be taking advantage of it, I surely don't begrudge Apple for creating it or the people who will be able take full advantage.

gbojim
May 7, 2002, 01:46 PM
2 points...

I dropped into my local reseller yesterday to pick up a couple of ibooks for our new sales reps. None in stock and Apple is currently not accepting orders. Same thing as when I went in to get a couple of Tibooks the other week.

One of my programmers is at WWDC and yesterday explicitly asked if Quartz Extreme will work with less than 32MB of VRAM. The answer was it will absolutely work as long as the vid card meets the minimum specs, however, it will not be quite as fast as a vid card with 32MB.

ftaok
May 7, 2002, 01:50 PM
Originally posted by gbojim
One of my programmers is at WWDC and yesterday explicitly asked if Quartz Extreme will work with less than 32MB of VRAM. The answer was it will absolutely work as long as the vid card meets the minimum specs, however, it will not be quite as fast as a vid card with 32MB. What are those min specs???

Will the 8MB ATi Rage 128 fall within the minimum specs? I doubt it, but who knows. Has anyone come across these min specs?

DannyZR2
May 7, 2002, 02:01 PM
Thing is that sucks, but Mac users have been in the dark for so long with graphics cards. PC's already do the "draw screen" using the graphics cards, not the CPU... which is why windows is so much more "snappy" feeling that OS X and even OS 9.. It will be very nice to finally have this in MacOS, but it will mean that Apple will have to step it up in the vid card arena.. (which they have! GF4 cards first in any desktop..) hopefully with the new ibook's they'll give us something to take advantage of the technology that we've all been missing.

gbojim
May 7, 2002, 02:05 PM
What are those min specs???


See Funkatation's post above.

ftaok
May 7, 2002, 02:22 PM
Originally posted by gbojim
See Funkatation's post above. His post only states what Apple's specs are for optimal performance.

You eluded to Quartz Extreme being able to work with less than the optimal specs as long as it meets the "minimum" specs. I'm asking about the minimal specs. Be they 16MB, 32MB, or even the 8MB ATi Rage 128 that are in the iceBooks.

Jeffrey
May 7, 2002, 03:15 PM
Straight from Apple's site (http://www.apple.com/macosx/newversion/):

*nVidia: GeForce2MX, GeForce3, GeForce4 Ti, GeForce4 or GeForce4MX. ATI: any AGP Radeon card. 32MB VRAM recommended for optimum performance.

Basically any Radeon card will work, including the new iBooks with the rumored Radeon card built in.

The old ATI Rage 128 is barely fast enough to handle basic 2-D screen redraws on a decent sized monitor, there's no way it would be able to handle all the additional work required for Quartz Extreme.

emdezet
May 7, 2002, 05:17 PM
Could someone please comment on the way, slower 2,5" hard disks influence the overall performance of X with its 50.000 files on a notebook.

iSmell
May 7, 2002, 09:09 PM
Originally posted by emdezet
Could someone please comment on the way, slower 2,5" hard disks influence the overall performance of X with its 50.000 files on a notebook.

They make it slower.

emdezet
May 8, 2002, 01:36 AM
Originally posted by iSmell


They make it slower.

Thank you!:rolleyes:

eric_n_dfw
May 8, 2002, 10:50 AM
Originally posted by iSmell


They make it slower.
This is true of Winblows and Linux too so what's the point?

Wry Cooter
May 8, 2002, 04:32 PM
Could someone please comment on how my perfectly good Quadra 800 is left out in the cold by this satanesque Quartz Extreme? Will it use floppies? Floppies are fast because they are small.

Thank you.

Newborn77
May 9, 2002, 09:13 AM
Originally posted by emdezet
Could someone please comment on the way, slower 2,5" hard disks influence the overall performance of X with its 50.000 files on a notebook.

LOL! You are lucky. My iceBook has over 80.000(!) files on its HD. :D

evands
May 10, 2002, 01:46 AM
Originally posted by Wry Cooter
Could someone please comment on how my perfectly good Quadra 800 is left out in the cold by this satanesque Quartz Extreme? Will it use floppies? Floppies are fast because they are small.

Thank you.

Would you care to join my class action suit? I'm suing Apple because OS X doesn't support greyscale 512x342, which is the resolution of my Mac SE. I'm not sure quite how we can rephrase the suit to include your Quadra, but I believe justice should be served.