Dual G4 PowerBooks?

[MacRumors]

Appleinsider claims (http://www.appleinsider.com/news.php?id=242) that dual G4 PowerBooks may "see the light of day" if the G5 is unable to be incorporated into the current PowerBook chassis in a reasonable timeframe.

According to the rumor site, Apple is working with Cooligy (http://www.cooligy.com/) and is shooting for a May 2004 G5 PowerBook release.

PowerPage.org had made (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2003/09/20030911014923.shtml) similar claims in September... that they expect Dual G4 PowerBooks to arrive before the G5 makes its way into the PowerBook.

[Laslo Panaflex]

I'd still wait for a G5 PB, a Dual G4 would be pretty cool.

[dbenesch]

The PowerMac G4 was introduced in Fall of 1999, and the Powerbook G4 wasn't introduced until January of 2001. It took a good 15 months to get the G4 into a 1" laptop.

Maybe people shouldn't have such high expectations of getting the G5 in so soon. A dual G4 will do nicely :)

[howard]

whoa...if they could pull this off without changing the size of the case...then whoa...

cause that means maybe eventually...we could have dual g5s in a powerbook...yikes!

[mum]

For some reason I don't quite believe that, but for someone like me who doesn't need 5 hours of battery life this would be nice. (Although I guess you could disable the other CPU to save power...)

[i_wolf]

WOOT
a duallie in a laptop! this would be so cool.

[howard]

Originally posted by mum
For some reason I don't quite believe that, but for someone like me who doesn't need 5 hours of battery life this would be nice. (Although I guess you could disable the other CPU to save power...)

yeah i'd be curious as to how much this would effect battery life...almost seems like the 2nd processor would be useless when you computer isn't plugged in...but then how many people do cpu intensive taskes when there computer is plugged in?

[AmigoMac]

Dual great, It means, PB G5 until jan 05...maybe WWDC 05...I'm already thinking what to write in ebay for my PB 12"...:D

[MacFan26]

Yeah, I'd definitely be impressed if they could do either the Dual G4 or the G5 without making the PowerBook any larger. A G5 PowerBook would be a great if it could come out in the Spring, or maybe at the next WWDC.

[funkywhat2]

the powerbook is great as it is. dual processors would add way too much heat (especially if they're like the processors that were in the old PM G4) and would make it alot thicker. before we go about demanding that we have dual processor laptops, we should demand single processor laptops that can be built without major flaws, such as screen splotchiness.

[Over Achiever]

Interesting. So dual G4s might see the light of day (I predicted it wouldn't happen!). But i'll still wait for a G5 powerbook even though having a dual proc laptop is quite a feat. Imagine the battery life on reduced speed, one processor (for really long batt life), and dual processors for plugged in intensive encoding.

Meh, I'll still wait for a fast (2 GHz G5) laptop.

-O.A.

[dongmin]

Originally posted by howard
whoa...if they could pull this off without changing the size of the case...then whoa...
Has anyone seen the inside of a 17" book? How does it compare to the 15"? I'm guessing that a dual config, if such a thing does come out, will be limited to the 17". So we might see something like a 1.5 ghz G4 in the next 15" and possibly a dual 1.0 ghz in the 17".

[the_dalex]

I would be surprised to see a dual G4 in a laptop mainly because it would be a lot of expensive re-engineering for a small market for a short period of time. Battery life and heat issues would make it difficult and less useful, and a G5 Powerbook is inevitable.

Imagine if they created a dual-1.25 Ghz Powerbook and it wasn't much faster than Intel's 1.7Ghz Pentium M... that would really not look good, taking two chips to do what one does. Apple is already behind in laptop performance, and if they want to make a major performance offering they are going to have to wait for a way to build a G5 PB. They should just lay low with another performance step next year, then go to the G5. A dual G4 PB would be anticlamactic and not representative of the direction Apple is headed.

[greenstork]

Originally posted by funkywhat2
the powerbook is great as it is. dual processors would add way too much heat (especially if they're like the processors that were in the old PM G4) and would make it alot thicker. before we go about demanding that we have dual processor laptops, we should demand single processor laptops that can be built without major flaws, such as screen splotchiness.

The Motorola 7447 and 7457 which are the current G4's in all Powerbooks are *considerably* cooler than the processors in the G4 PM that I think you are referring to. My guess is that with the 7447 processors, a dual PB would probably be as hot as a TiBook, which is much hotter than my 1 GHz 12" PB. I do think battery life could be an issue.

[MongoTheGeek]

Originally posted by dongmin
Has anyone seen the inside of a 17" book? How does it compare to the 15"? I'm guessing that a dual config, if such a thing does come out, will be limited to the 17". So we might see something like a 1.5 ghz G4 in the next 15" and possibly a dual 1.0 ghz in the 17".

This could quite possibly be available only in LapZilla. Honestly I was rather disappointed with it in that all of the extra space wasn't used for more battery...

A second CPU would be nice.

[agreenster]

Also doubles as a portable skillet.

Yummy.

[Ambrose Chapel]

given that dual-procs perform better than singles in video encoding and the like, even a dual G4 vs a single G5 (according to MacWorld testing), a dual G4 in the 17" would really sell it as the video pro's portable workstation.

[greenstork]

Does anyone else think that the G5 PB is going to be a Rev A to stay away from? I get this feeling that with all of the heat and engineering issues that the Rev A is going to be as good as a beta model, rife with problems.

[pgwalsh]

I'm surprised this isn't on Page 2. If they're going to be using cooligy technology, I'd imagine that they could do that with the G5... why waste the time on a G4?

If the G5 goes 90 nanometer then I can't imagine dual G4... crazy. :rolleyes:

[the_mole1314]

Wierd, I think a dual system would probably be only in the 17, but I'd guess it would be thicker than the other versions of the PB.

[weev]

i am still waiting on the that old-skool single processor 1.25 15" that Apple releases some weeks back.

Things are moving slowly in that department down under.

And I agree with an earlier post. I'd prefer to see well made machines now than some pipe dream machine in the future, get over it, one day we'll see quad G9 processor, in a wafer-thin case. The future is always latest and greatest but the real challenge is delivering in the now.

I hope my laptop arrives before its superseeded.

[fussball]

am I the only one underwhelmed by the idea of a dual processor laptop? It just seems like trying to make up for having a deficient processor in the first place. In desktops it makes more sense, but for laptops, being compact is the whole idea and putting in a 2nd proc. defeats the purpose. Just my .02 I guess

[themadchemist]

I would have thought that 2 G4's would give off more heat than 1 G5. Ah, well, I guess not.

greenstork: you're absolutely right...and that's the truth for every major laptop rev A. Hopefully we won't have the troubles we had way back when, was it with the pb 100?, with laptops catching on the fire and the like. I'm sure it won't be terrible, but apple definitely needs that second revision to get the bugs worked out.

[JoE950]

they already said osx is able to run on intel and amd, why not go with one of those instead of trying to double up on crappy G4s?

[themadchemist]

Originally posted by JoE950
they already said osx is able to run on intel and amd, why not go with one of those instead of trying to double up on crappy G4s?

WHO said that? It takes a lot to build an OS to run on an entirely different platform like that. It's not just like you recompile for x86 and viola! there it goes.

Anyway, it would be ridiculous on Apple's part to put an Intel or an AMD processor in its computers, from a marketing perspective. Apple has spend a great deal of time and money stating that the PowerPC architecture is inherently better than the x86 architecture (this is an argument that I would agree with, from various reading I've done about the two architectures). Apple's statement is one that has been gaining momentum with the great performance of the G5. To switch to an x86 for just the laptop line would be to indirectly state a preference of Intel/AMD over IBM processors. That would be a horrific move!

It's probably also not a good idea to diversify your line SO MUCH as to have different companies designing processors for your different lines.

Plus, Intel sucks. AMD's good, but in the long term, I'm a PPC fan, just based on its philosophy for architecture: Simplicity & efficiency.

[SiliconAddict]

Originally posted by Macrumors
Appleinsider claims (http://www.appleinsider.com/news.php?id=242) that dual G4 PowerBooks may "see the light of day" if the G5 is unable to be incorporated into the current PowerBook chassis in a reasonable timeframe.

According to the rumor site, Apple is working with Cooligy (http://www.cooligy.com/) and is shooting for a May 2004 G5 PowerBook release.

OK here is what I read:
blah blah blah blah blah PowerBooks blah "blah blah blah blah blah" blah blah G5 blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah PowerBook blah blah blah blah blah.

blah blah blah blah blah, blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah G5 PowerBook release.

Translation. WOO HOO!! :D

[1macker1]

I said this would happen a while ago, and now that i think about it, who needs that type of power in a laptop. Aren't laptops suppose to be for light use. A PB G4 seems to be pretty powerful, why make it a dual.

[leet1]

Originally posted by 1macker1
Aren't laptops suppose to be for light use.


Nope, the slow speeds of the Apple laptops have gotten you to think like this ;)

[stoid]

Originally posted by 1macker1
I said this would happen a while ago, and now that i think about it, who needs that type of power in a laptop. Aren't laptops suppose to be for light use. A PB G4 seems to be pretty powerful, why make it a dual.

While I think that a dual laptop would be silly, and have the battery life of half an hour, I would not think it a bad thing. I am a college student and my only computer is a 15 inch AluBook. Being able to get a little more power out of it while it's on the desk in the dorm might be nice.

[cubist]

Originally posted by themadchemist
... was it with the pb 100?, with laptops catching on the fire and the like. ...

I think it was the 5300, which was the PowerPC version of the 520. The 520 should have been a mature design too, except it used the so-called "intelligent batteries". The 5300 used a new kind of battery, and that's what lead to its rather creative failure modes. The new processor wasn't at fault.

The problems people are having with the new PB 15" aren't processor-related either. And nobody seems to be having any trouble with the G5 towers, other than not being able to run VPC. (Maybe Bochs will run fast enough on that beast anyway?)

The lesson we should learn is don't change too many things at once...

[macphoria]

This would be great. A portable oven. I could make breakfast on the road. Put some eggs and toast on the palmrest/grill and set the oven to video-render/Photoshop-filter and breakfast is served!

[Edot]

Originally posted by JoE950
they already said osx is able to run on intel and amd, why not go with one of those instead of trying to double up on crappy G4s?

Steve did say it was pretty easy to run OS X on Intel, AMD, or whatever. HOWEVER, he also said that the PowerPC roadmap looks really really good! Apple knows what IBM is going to deliver in the future, and with the results of the G5, I think it is going to be impressive. They just have to wait out the G4's. Spending money to change architectures doesn't seem like the right choice with IBM pumping out "really really good" processors.

[JoE950]

Originally posted by themadchemist
WHO said that? It takes a lot to build an OS to run on an entirely different platform like that. It's not just like you recompile for x86 and viola! there it goes.

Anyway, it would be ridiculous on Apple's part to put an Intel or an AMD processor in its computers, from a marketing perspective. Apple has spend a great deal of time and money stating that the PowerPC architecture is inherently better than the x86 architecture (this is an argument that I would agree with, from various reading I've done about the two architectures). Apple's statement is one that has been gaining momentum with the great performance of the G5. To switch to an x86 for just the laptop line would be to indirectly state a preference of Intel/AMD over IBM processors. That would be a horrific move!

It's probably also not a good idea to diversify your line SO MUCH as to have different companies designing processors for your different lines.

Plus, Intel sucks. AMD's good, but in the long term, I'm a PPC fan, just based on its philosophy for architecture: Simplicity & efficiency.

you missed my point, amd and intel have stuff ready to go that kicks the g4s ass. it seems to be a honest stand in untill the G5 is ready. and um apple already has two different processor vendors, so whats a third matter? dont hit me with marketing bs.. its poor marketing to throw two inferior processors into an already steaming hot laptop.

[LimeLite]

Originally posted by themadchemist
WHO said that? It takes a lot to build an OS to run on an entirely different platform like that. It's not just like you recompile for x86 and viola! there it goes.

Steve Jobs recently said himself that OS X would could run on any processor out there, but they've seen the roadmap for the PowerPC and they're happy with where it's headed.

[shadowfax]

man, just when you thought they'd realize apple would never do something like this, speculation comes again... on the front page.

it won't happen. if you want a dual G4 system, buy 2 powerbooks.

[~Shard~]

I don’t really care for the idea of dual G4 PowerBooks. To me, laptops are supposed to be light, compact and not workhorses (although I know some people use them for that regardless!) Therefore, having dual processors in a tower, sure, that makes sense, but in a laptop, it seems kind of silly. Plus, if they’re doing this just to get by until the G5 can go into the PowerBooks, wouldn’t this be a slightly expensive endeavor? They would have to re-engineer everything, and for what, 6 months of use until the G5 PBs came out, and a brand new re-engineering effort?

My other concerns are over heat and battery life. I'm sure this thing would melt your lap! Hmm, maybe Apple can make the bottom of the laptop a grill so that you can flip it over and fry some bacon and eggs! ;) But as far as battery life goes, I can’t see how this thing would run for too long with 2 G4s sucking all that power. Plus, isn’t a laptop supposed to be portable? – because it’s hard to be when you can only go half an hour before needing to recharge it. That kind of defeats the whole purpose.

Although I think a DP laptop is a interesting idea, I don’t know if it makes a hell of a lot of sense...

[themadchemist]

Originally posted by cubist
I think it was the 5300, which was the PowerPC version of the 520. The 520 should have been a mature design too, except it used the so-called "intelligent batteries". The 5300 used a new kind of battery, and that's what lead to its rather creative failure modes. The new processor wasn't at fault.

The problems people are having with the new PB 15" aren't processor-related either. And nobody seems to be having any trouble with the G5 towers, other than not being able to run VPC. (Maybe Bochs will run fast enough on that beast anyway?)

The lesson we should learn is don't change too many things at once...

Thanks for the history...Yeah, I was probably around 8 then, so my knowledge & memory of the situation is not terribly detailed.

From my experience, the desktops have never been TOO problematic. And I wouldn't really expect many problems with a PB 15" G4, after all this time that the G4 has been in laptops, even those with a smaller enclosure.

In general, though, hasn't Apple had problems with their lappies whenever a new processor generation is introduced into them? Perhaps they haven't been problems with the processor alone, but it is possible that placing a lot of attention into the implementation of the new processor could lead to oversights in other important aspects of design.

[swissmann]

I had a dual 500 G4 tower and an 800 MHz G4 iMac. The dual processor machine was way faster and more functional, not just marginally so. I also had a 667 TiBook which was slower than both of course. From my experience I would rather have 2 processors each at half the speed than one fast processor. I'd probably buy a dual 1 GHz 17 inch G4 over a Single 2 GHz G5 laptop. 2 processors seem to work well with multitasking, which is something I do all the time. By the way when I had my TiBook, 90% of the time it was plugged in the other 10% of the time it was on the road for selling. Battery life wasn't that big of a deal for me like it would be for a college student. Ideally I would like to see a dual processor G5 laptop. I love my Dual 2 GHz G5 tower. I'm not talking about practicality just what I would like.

[iMeowbot]

Originally posted by themadchemist
I would have thought that 2 G4's would give off more heat than 1 G5. Ah, well, I guess not.

Motorola's dual-core G4 is supposed to appear some time in 2004, and it's also supposed to use a bit less power than the 7457. A little more here. (http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/39/31026.html) Assuming it's not vaporware, this part might be really nice in a PB.

[1macker1]

I'd want to see one just for the price drop in the single processor PB:)

[primalman]

Originally posted by JoE950
you missed my point, amd and intel have stuff ready to go that kicks the g4s ass. it seems to be a honest stand in untill the G5 is ready. and um apple already has two different processor vendors, so whats a third matter? dont hit me with marketing bs.. its poor marketing to throw two inferior processors into an already steaming hot laptop.

The third matters because you are talking a complete architecture change. No Mac application would run on this thing, not without a complete rewrite. That ain't gonna happen, no matter what any newbie says. :D

No way. Stupid, stupid, stupid idea.

Did I say stupid?

[areyouwishing]

i just don't think apple will do this. It will bastardize the apple laptop as we know it today.

Im sitting here typing this on a 1ghz 12" that i do most my graphic design on now, hook it up to an external monitor and i swear you wouldn't know you are using a laptop...although i wish the video card was 64mb. I consider myself a demanding user and this thing has not fallen short once...ok maybe dual displays with editing video.

If apple came out with a dualie laptop they would basically be saying to the world, "we can't make fast enough processors, so we stuck another on in there for ya, by the way, you can get 15 minutes of estimated battery time when not plugged in."

[Awimoway]

The very fact that iBooks have gone G4 is a good indication that Powerbooks will make the G5 jump soon enough.

I mean, there's just no other option. Sooner or later, the Powerbooks HAVE to move past the G4. Going dualie instead of G5 seems like a rather boneheaded procrastination move to me. I'm not saying it would never happen, but it strikes me as kind of silly.

[applekid]

Originally posted by fussball
am I the only one underwhelmed by the idea of a dual processor laptop? It just seems like trying to make up for having a deficient processor in the first place. In desktops it makes more sense, but for laptops, being compact is the whole idea and putting in a 2nd proc. defeats the purpose. Just my .02 I guess

Nope.

Remember the PowerMac G4's with 400 Mhz to (I think) 733 MHz? There was like 5 models for the different CPUs. Next release were dual G4's of all of those to make them actually look like they're speed demons. This was about when Moto screwed Apple's G4 line. Talk about a mess.

But, Apple has been very slow to update PB's. Unless the next PB has G4's at or greater than 1.42 Ghz, top of the line-wise, then I don't think we should worry too much. It'd be like one last breath before we go G5.

[spinner]

I personally feel that any R&D money that they put into a dual G4 PB will be a complete waste. The G5 is the future and the sooner its in the PB the better. I really hope they don't put any money or manpower into this just for bragging rights.

[dongmin]

Originally posted by iMeowbot
Motorola's dual-core G4 is supposed to appear some time in 2004, and it's also supposed to use a bit less power than the 7457. A little more here. (http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/39/31026.html) Assuming it's not vaporware, this part might be really nice in a PB.

uhh, the Register predicted that Apple was gonna release a Moto-based G5 two Januaries ago. In another words, don't believe a single prediction that the Register makes, especially regarding a Moto processor.

as for 7447's power consumption, it's supposed to draw less than 10 W at 1.0 ghz (http://e-www.motorola.com/webapp/sps/site/prod_summary.jsp?code=MPC7447&nodeId=03C1TR046708718653#documentation). If I remember correctly the old TiBook had a 7455 (7445?) that drew 16-20 W at 1.0 ghz.

So from a power point of view, two low-voltage 7447s might not be much more than what they had before. This could be even more manageable if they had power-saving features that controlled the usage of the second processor. Imagine: on the road, with just one processor, you get 6-7 hours battery life; when you're at the office, you can crank along at dual 1.0 ghz. Not a bad compromise, if you ask me.

[JoE950]

Originally posted by primalman
The third matters because you are talking a complete architecture change. No Mac application would run on this thing, not without a complete rewrite. That ain't gonna happen, no matter what any newbie says. :D

No way. Stupid, stupid, stupid idea.

Did I say stupid?

where do you get this crap. they wouldnt have even considered the processors if they wouldnt run the apps... they specifically stated that osx (undoubtedly including all the apps supported excluding vpc) would run on that architecture, but they chose ibm.. please dont exaggerate and lie, its not becoming...

[primalman]

Originally posted by JoE950
where do you get this crap. they wouldnt have even considered the processors if they wouldnt run the apps... they specifically stated that osx (undoubtedly including all the apps supported excluding vpc) would run on that architecture, but they chose ibm.. please dont exaggerate and lie, its not becoming...

Do you really think that PhotoShop for the x86 and PhotoShop for PPC are the same peice of software? No, they are not, completely different hardware interaction layer. And then some.

Yes, Steve did say that they could [not would, mind you] get OS X to run on x86 without a lot of trial, but he was talking about OS X only. He has no say or control over how app makers would port, or even if they would even try, which would be a near impossibility [to get the company to do it] for anything but a hobby app.

This is not an exageration. An exageration is thinking that Apple can slap a x86 processor into a PowerBook and all the apps will run and all the speed 'issues' would be solved.

[-hh]

Originally posted by the_dalex
I would be surprised to see a dual G4 in a laptop mainly because it would be a lot of expensive re-engineering for a small market for a short period of time...

It wouldn't be that expensive if the DP was pre-planned. For example, consider the PowerMac 1.8GHz G5: the empty space for a 2nd G5 is there and waiting.

Thus said, I would have to say that the odds are probably just about even between the 17" and the 15" for which one goes DP. The 17" should be easier (case volume), but the 15 is at least in theory the newest design (thus, more likely that they thought about it during the design).


Imagine if they created a dual-1.25 Ghz Powerbook and it wasn't much faster than Intel's 1.7Ghz Pentium M... that would really not look good, taking two chips to do what one does. Apple is already behind in laptop performance, and if they want to make a major performance offering they are going to have to wait for a way to build a G5 PB. They should just lay low with another performance step next year, then go to the G5. A dual G4 PB would be anticlamactic and not representative of the direction Apple is headed.

A good point, but by the same token, they need to do something to keep "refreshing" the product line and keep it relevent. Particularly as the G4 continues to be out of gas for speedbumps, if you're going to raise up the bottom end, the upper end also needs "something". The alternative is to chop prices, and I don't think that we're going to see a 12" SuperDrive BP for $599...


-hh

[montecristo]

The way I read the AppleInsider blurb was that May 2004 is the target for a G5 PB release. If they can't make this deadline (give or take a month, my guess) then they will be ready to roll with a dual G4 PB. They would not do a dual G4 PB if a G5 PB is in the reasonable horizon; they would do it only in a dire emergency, like if the colling technology doesn't get approved by UL (which could conceivably set everything back to the drawing board -- yikes, another 6 months! :eek: ). Either way, it seems like May 2004 is the target for the next PB release/update.:D

[Photorun]

Originally posted by JoE950
where do you get this crap. they wouldnt have even considered the processors if they wouldnt run the apps... they specifically stated that osx (undoubtedly including all the apps supported excluding vpc) would run on that architecture, but they chose ibm.. please dont exaggerate and lie, its not becoming...

Ah, the knee jerk Maczealot reaction, gotta love it. "Nooo, waahh, not Intel or something peecee in my Mac?!?" Get over it, Jobs said the roadmap for now (NOW) looks great with IBM, you can relax (for now).

You're almost kinda sorta right in that almost all apps would need to be recompiled for different chips for the current architecture or approximage of PPC. Hard? Yes. Impossible? No, not at all. I work with someone who makes dual platform (X to XP) and porting isn't that tough, one platform will take a performance hit mind you, but not tough. Adobe ports some of their software too, not from the ground up on both platforms, again, parts take advantage of a chip, others just run their coding and are on their merry way a bit regardless of what chip or architecture it's on.

OS X can most certainly run on Intel or (preferably) AMD though, and I'm sure it's been thought of a few times. As long as IBM comes through ('cause Moto ain't) and we have at least SOME timelines we'll be using IBM's offerings. Should that slip, you never know. Just remember it would, for all intent and purpose, mean most apps would have to be recompiled, and that would get sticky.

[beefstu01]

Originally posted by JoE950
where do you get this crap. they wouldnt have even considered the processors if they wouldnt run the apps... they specifically stated that osx (undoubtedly including all the apps supported excluding vpc) would run on that architecture, but they chose ibm.. please dont exaggerate and lie, its not becoming...

Primalman is right- you won't be able to run any current Mac app on it. All applications written for the Mac right now are compiled as to work with the current architecture (PPC). Linux is a great example of this- it runs on every platform I can think of, but you can't swap programs between platforms without recompiling the code.

For my two cents, I really doubt this will happen.

1) Two processors will draw a lot of charge (more than one will, at least), so your battery life will go to *****. Look at what apple did for the current revision of the PowerBook- it shrunk the battery to save weight (and to fit), so unless the PowerBooks are about to get bigger and heavier, I doubt we'll see duals with a respectable battery life.

2) Two processors will get a lot hotter than just one guys. My 15" isn't TOO hot, but it gets warm... imagine adding a second processor. "But both won't be used as much..." blah blah blah. Point is that two processors will still put out a decent amount of heat.

3) Have you looked inside a PowerBook? Have you seen how much space is in one? Just where the heck do you propose that Apple sticks a second processor? Everything is so packed in there... I think there was some voodoo magic that went on to get everything to fit. Remember, by adding a second processor you'll need space not only to add the processor, but you'll need to modify your controller, all the wiring, futz with your heat pipe, blah blah blah.

4) Put two and two together people- look at what Apple did with the iBook. When everything was getting AirPort Extreme, FireWire 800, etc..., the iBook got a lousy speed bump. A few months later, it got overhauled, all the goodies and a G4. I think Apple's at the same stage with the PowerBooks- we'll probably see one more revision, maybe two, before we see the G5. I don't think it would make sense to spend lots of cash on R&D for just one revision.

Once again, just my two cents.

[sjc1204]

Everyone's so focused on CPU for the Powerbooks but we are all missing a very important factor which is hard drive speed.

If we want a huge performance increase, we should be wanting 7200 rpm / 8 mb cache drives that stay cool and use very little power.

For example, I recently replaced the original 5400 rpm drive in my G4 AGP 466 MHz with a new Maxtor 80 GB 7200 rpm and it's like having a new machine.

Desktop replacement can't truly happen on a performance level until the drives are take care of.

[Photorun]

two verses one debate (debacle)

The thing is two chips really aren't faster, or that much faster than one. Go to macspeedzone.com or barefeats.com or ones run by macaddict.com, only apps that take advantage of two chips are actually faster on two chips. This really serves how much of the entire Mac market? 10% Maybe? Probably not even? Sure some hard core Photoshop user would be itchy to do a Guassin blur in 4 seconds instead of 7 seconds, but c'mon, what's it really about? Bragging rights, that's what, "I got two chips.. .WOOT!" When in fact the extra bucks could have easily been spent on RAM which for most things will see a better increase in speed than two chips. Two chips is a bit of an Apple smoke screen. Brag factor? 10. Reality factor? 1.

Just wait for the single processor G5 late next year or early 2005, two chips isn't going to give most people any real gains, only losses to their wallets.

[gwuMACaddict]

Originally posted by spinner
I personally feel that any R&D money that they put into a dual G4 PB will be a complete waste. The G5 is the future and the sooner its in the PB the better. I really hope they don't put any money or manpower into this just for bragging rights.


i think its an excellent way for apple to work on its cooling system. two g4s put off less heat than a single g5 as i understand it. figure out how to cool two g4s in a powerbook, then figure out how to make the g5 work later

[ryaxnb]

Originally posted by spinner
I personally feel that any R&D money that they put into a dual G4 PB will be a complete waste. The G5 is the future and the sooner its in the PB the better. I really hope they don't put any money or manpower into this just for bragging rights. Yeah. They'd have to develop a new architecture and use it for... 4-5 months, probably. Real useful.

[Photorun]

Originally posted by sjc1204
For example, I recently replaced the original 5400 rpm drive in my G4 AGP 466 MHz with a new Maxtor 80 GB 7200 rpm and it's like having a new machine.

Correct, which is such a joke of Apple to put a 4200 in their laptops. I work with Protools, audio recording software, the thing chokes on the paltry cheap drives Apple uses. There's some GREAT 5400 and even 7200 drives that don't consume any more power than the cheapy 4200 Apple sticks in the machines. A faster drive is like a new machine. We've put some Travelstar 7200 in a Powerbook 800 and it now can outsmoke the PB 15 1 GHz with the same RAM and OS. Hard drive speeds mean faster access times, file moving times, everything. People should be up in arms over Apple's choices of hard drives, they've been hobbling their Powerbook line since day one.

(Note: I say Powerbook because iBooks are using 5400s which is why the iBook G3 900 could often BEAT the Powerbook G4 1 GHz in tests, while the G4 was hunting, reading, writing and accessing the G3 iBook had already gotten and performed with all the info)

[Dunepilot]

Originally posted by swissmann
I had a dual 500 G4 tower and an 800 MHz G4 iMac. The dual processor machine was way faster and more functional, not just marginally so. I also had a 667 TiBook which was slower than both of course. From my experience I would rather have 2 processors each at half the speed than one fast processor. I'd probably buy a dual 1 GHz 17 inch G4 over a Single 2 GHz G5 laptop. 2 processors seem to work well with multitasking, which is something I do all the time. By the way when I had my TiBook, 90% of the time it was plugged in the other 10% of the time it was on the road for selling. Battery life wasn't that big of a deal for me like it would be for a college student. Ideally I would like to see a dual processor G5 laptop. I love my Dual 2 GHz G5 tower. I'm not talking about practicality just what I would like.

Couldn't agree more - my Dual proc G4 Powermac is a lovely machine to work with, and I can't see myself ever buying another single-processor desktop.

What amazes me is that everyone's treating this as if Apple only just thought that a dual-G4 laptop was a possibility. There's every likelihood that they've had prototype dual proc machines for every generation of G4 Powerbook. It's only now that the heat problems are being lessened by the new G4 models that such an idea becomes practical.

As for Apple admitting that their machines don't cut it by introducing duals, if that were the case they would never have gone the (Moto-enforced) dual route with the Powermac.

[illumin8]

Originally posted by swissmann
From my experience I would rather have 2 processors each at half the speed than one fast processor.
Can I please have some of whatever it is that you're smoking? ;) In all seriousness, you never get the same level of performance from the second processor as you do from the first. On a good unix kernel you might get 90% or even 95% of the performance of the first processor on your second. There is some overhead due to the scheduler having to swap threads around between processors. Also, there are cache coherency issues and memory access issues with both processors trying to work on the same memory.

So a single 2 ghz. machine will always beat a dual 1 ghz. machine, all other components being equal, in every single benchmark. Especially if we are talking single G5 vs. dual G4.

[the_mole1314]

I'm kinda ticked off whenever someone says "Oh, there's a Mac Zelot". It makes me mad. I mean, we arn't going out there and say "MACS ARE BETTER JUST BECAUSE! PCS BURN IN HELL!", we are giving reasons, especially in AMD and Intel architecture. P4 and AMD machines are better than most G4s, most, but their mobile companions, still suck since heat is a big issue. As for OSX on Intel, it would be hard to port something AS GOOD as it on a PPC, but if you want to do a half ass attempt, it could take up to 6 months to do it. It's not like there are apps like 'Adobe Mac to PC App Conversion' or vice versa.

[the_dalex]

Pre-planning still costs money, just like planning. Considering the current models don't have a slot for a second processor, we'd be talking about a new logic board at the very least, but likely more. If they had another logic board ready to go that they had already spent the money on, then the cost would just be shifting to new logic board production and the loss in economies of scale, which is still significant considering it would be several hundred dollars more than that of the 17" models.

I place the dual-G4 powerbook rumor in the "Less than one percent chance" category.

[iPC]

Originally posted by swissmann
I had a dual 500 G4 tower and an 800 MHz G4 iMac. The dual processor machine was way faster and more functional, not just marginally so. I also had a 667 TiBook which was slower than both of course. From my experience I would rather have 2 processors each at half the speed than one fast processor. I'd probably buy a dual 1 GHz 17 inch G4 over a Single 2 GHz G5 laptop. 2 processors seem to work well with multitasking, which is something I do all the time. By the way when I had my TiBook, 90% of the time it was plugged in the other 10% of the time it was on the road for selling. Battery life wasn't that big of a deal for me like it would be for a college student. Ideally I would like to see a dual processor G5 laptop. I love my Dual 2 GHz G5 tower. I'm not talking about practicality just what I would like.
You realise the G5 gets more work done per clock cycle than the G4 does, right? The whole point of the move to the G5 was because of this. It is NOT just a clock cycle thing.

I see the MHz-Myth lives.... :rolleyes:

[jamilecrire]

Originally posted by Over Achiever
Interesting. So dual G4s might see the light of day (I predicted it wouldn't happen!). But i'll still wait for a G5 powerbook even though having a dual proc laptop is quite a feat. Imagine the battery life on reduced speed, one processor (for really long batt life), and dual processors for plugged in intensive encoding.

Meh, I'll still wait for a fast (2 GHz G5) laptop.

-O.A.

Maybe you'll get a dual either way. If the 980 is multi-core then you may get the best of both worlds, G5 Dual Processor.

[~Shard~]

Originally posted by the_dalex
Pre-planning still costs money, just like planning. Considering the current models don't have a slot for a second processor, we'd be talking about a new logic board at the very least, but likely more. If they had another logic board ready to go that they had already spent the money on, then the cost would just be shifting to new logic board production and the loss in economies of scale, which is still significant considering it would be several hundred dollars more than that of the 17" models.

I place the dual-G4 powerbook rumor in the "Less than one percent chance" category.

I think you hit the nail on the head: new logic board = more $$$ = loss in economies of scale = much more expensive PB. And unless you're doing hardcore Photoshopping, or using FCP, how many people would actually benefit from DPs? A very small % I'm thinking... If you absolutely need DPs, get a tower!

[backdraft]

Apple could easily have IBM produce faster G4's (2.0ghz+) add a faster bus and faster RAM. No need for dual chips yet.

Though it could be fun :rolleyes:

-backdraft

[ITR 81]

Before any dually pops out I expect to see in the next 3 months a change in G4 processors.

17inch = 1.42GHz
15inch = 1.33GHz
12inch = 1.25GHz


I believe the iBook will also see a similar processor change since they are now using the G4 processor.

[pgwalsh]

I could see dual processor G4's if they had some type of bus slewing or the following:

Mobile 1 Processor running
Plugged in 2 Processors running..

No idea if this is possible.

[MikeAtari]

I'd like to see Dual Laptop G4/s.

I don't see the problem if Motorola can actually deliver a Dual Core G4. Would be great if Motorola left the picture on a high note.

For Java Dev, these would be perfect machines.
And we don't need high ghz. 1.0 would be fine.

Simply, the ability to test multi-threaded apps on a laptop would be great. Since Apple already has the OS running on the G4 Desktop, I don't see any major expense in the OS department.

Can't really test threaded code on a single processor.

[LethalWolfe]

I think a dual proc would be nice to see in the 17" PB. I mean, it's already a desktop replacement (how many people are going to tote around a 17" like they would a 15" or 12") so why not give it the extra juice? The screen size plus dual procs would easily make it the best mobile/on location video editing solution out there. Why ship/transport a tower, monitor, and kb/m when you could just ship a dual proc 17". And with companies making external solutions for render assitance/RT FX and capturing uncompressed video laptops aren't as handicapped as they used to be.


Lethal

[MikeAtari]

Would be hot demand for a G5 laptop if
Apple finishes the OS X rewrite for 64 bits
and Sun puts out a 64 JVM.

Still, a dual core G5 would be nirvana for Java Dev.

[manitoubalck]

Originally posted by the_dalex
I would be surprised to see a dual G4 in a laptop mainly because it would be a lot of expensive re-engineering for a small market for a short period of time. Battery life and heat issues would make it difficult and less useful, and a G5 Powerbook is inevitable.

My thoughts exactly, heat and power consumption, of a dual sysetem are much greater, that would limit battery life, so I don't see it happeing.

[MikeAtari]

There is a difference between a dual core and a dual chip.
A dual core would be, presumably, in the 90 nm size.

I don't see Apple coming out with a Dual Chip,
maybe a one off for Steve.

But, again, if Moto can deliver, a Dual Core with memory mgmt built in would be cooler that a single and seperate MMU.

[manitoubalck]

Originally posted by MikeAtari
There is a difference between a dual core and a dual chip.
A dual core would be, presumably, in the 90 nm size.

I don't see Apple coming out with a Dual Chip,
maybe a one off for Steve.

But, again, if Moto can deliver, a Dual Core with memory mgmt built in would be cooler that a single and seperate MMU.

Moto @ 90nm HA, your joking right. There the only major chip maker still using 180nm tech, and they only just made the swap to 130nm. Moto @ 90nm maybe in 2005/6.

[swissmann]

Originally posted by iPC
You realise the G5 gets more work done per clock cycle than the G4 does, right? The whole point of the move to the G5 was because of this. It is NOT just a clock cycle thing.

I see the MHz-Myth lives.... :rolleyes:

Yes I understand that. That is why I am working on a Dual G5 machine right now and have two Dual 1 GHz G4s to either side of me. All tech notes and benchmarks aside. If I can have one processor rendering my video and borrow the other processor to work in photoshop I find my work day more productive than having one faster processor render video more quickly and waiting for it to finish before working in photoshop, or dedicating the fast processor to switching over to photoshop and work with the foreground app and have the video rendering slow way down in the background. The way I work benefits more from two processors than one faster one. Of course two super fast processors is the most productive. :)

[iMeowbot]

Originally posted by dongmin
uhh, the Register predicted that Apple was gonna release a Moto-based G5 two Januaries ago. In another words, don't believe a single prediction that the Register makes, especially regarding a Moto processor.

Motorola themselves did announce that a dual core was on the way, it's not just a Register thing. Here's the presentation (http://e-www.motorola.com/files/sndf/doc/reports_presentations/SNDF2003_EUROPE_H1101.pdf), the multicore stuff is covered on pages 32 through 35. With a goal of up to 2 GHz, that's a discussion of current/near-term processes, and they clearly show this integrated stuff as a 2004 development.

[greenstork]

Originally posted by dongmin
uhh, the Register predicted that Apple was gonna release a Moto-based G5 two Januaries ago. In another words, don't believe a single prediction that the Register makes, especially regarding a Moto processor.

as for 7447's power consumption, it's supposed to draw less than 10 W at 1.0 ghz (http://e-www.motorola.com/webapp/sps/site/prod_summary.jsp?code=MPC7447&nodeId=03C1TR046708718653#documentation). If I remember correctly the old TiBook had a 7455 (7445?) that drew 16-20 W at 1.0 ghz.

So from a power point of view, two low-voltage 7447s might not be much more than what they had before. This could be even more manageable if they had power-saving features that controlled the usage of the second processor. Imagine: on the road, with just one processor, you get 6-7 hours battery life; when you're at the office, you can crank along at dual 1.0 ghz. Not a bad compromise, if you ask me.

HERE HERE. All you people bitching about heat, take note. The 7447 is a *new* chip (in Motorola terms). The PB's used to be really hot, but they're not anymore, catch up to the new paradign already. I'm not a Motorola fan at all but to say they're scorching hot simply isn't accurate anymore.

[iPC]

Originally posted by swissmann
Yes I understand that. That is why I am working on a Dual G5 machine right now and have two Dual 1 GHz G4s to either side of me. All tech notes and benchmarks aside. If I can have one processor rendering my video and borrow the other processor to work in photoshop I find my work day more productive than having one faster processor render video more quickly and waiting for it to finish before working in photoshop, or dedicating the fast processor to switching over to photoshop and work with the foreground app and have the video rendering slow way down in the background. The way I work benefits more from two processors than one faster one. Of course two super fast processors is the most productive. :)
Then you of all people should know that laptops are not for doing intensive work. Never have been, probably never will. The laptop is a niche market... people wanting or "needing" desktop replacement power should not be looking at Apple's laptops to begin with. If you need outright crankin' power in your laptop (all other considerations set aside), you need something with a P4 at 3.2 GHz that has 7200rpm hdd and the Radeon 9600 (128MB DDR)....

[Trekkie]

I'm sorry ,but with 1.25GHz and 1.0GHz we get 2- 4 hours of usuable life on the battery.

To get the same amt of time with two processors your battery is gonna have to be huge.

[greenstork]

Originally posted by the_mole1314
I'm kinda ticked off whenever someone says "Oh, there's a Mac Zelot". It makes me mad. I mean, we arn't going out there and say "MACS ARE BETTER JUST BECAUSE! PCS BURN IN HELL!", we are giving reasons, especially in AMD and Intel architecture. P4 and AMD machines are better than most G4s, most, but their mobile companions, still suck since heat is a big issue. As for OSX on Intel, it would be hard to port something AS GOOD as it on a PPC, but if you want to do a half ass attempt, it could take up to 6 months to do it. It's not like there are apps like 'Adobe Mac to PC App Conversion' or vice versa.

The reason that Apple is reluctant to go x86 is simple. They are a systems company meaning that they rely on the sale of harware and software for their income. Since margins on their software are quite low and research and development expenses super high, there is relatively little, if any profit on operating systems and other software. However, margins on Apple hardware are among the highest in the industry and here is where their bread is buttered.

IF Apple was to convert to x86 a number of things would happen, including:

* they would have to rewrite all of their software at great expense.
* legacy support would be a nightmare.
* Tech support costs would essentially double due to the fact that you would have two unique system architectures which would require double the intellectual capital.
* And here's the kicker, quick and easy ports of OS X and other software would be possible on all x86 hardware, including you daddy's Dell.

Where does that leave Apple, with a messy, expensive transition, frought with ongoing legacy support issues and eroding hardware margins.

Staying with PPC was a no-brainer but the fact that they even considered it is a reflection on Motorola more than anything.

[MrMacMan]

swissmann -- No your wrong.

The G5 Compared to a G4 with the same clock speed the G5 easily wins.

You say 'Dual 1 GHZ G4 > 2 GHZ G5 you would be wrong in most cases.'

The G5 would for sure be faster.

Originally posted by backdraft
Apple could easily have IBM produce faster G4's (2.0ghz+) add a faster bus and faster RAM. No need for dual chips yet.

Though it could be fun :rolleyes:

-backdraft

Sure, execpt that IBM only makes Apple's G3 and G5 Chips.

IBM does not Make the G4 Chip.

Motorola Does.

To Summarize.

Dual Processor Means:
Dual Battery (unless you want 2 hours or less to run the laptop)
Thicker (unless you want the CPU to burn out... or unless they get some new cooling device... Like Water Cooling)
A Lot more Money (unless you take out those nice DVD drives)
Oh yes and it weighs more.

Again Dual Processor is not the way to go.

More weight or less battery life. And it costs more.


Sorry guys, I'd say this is a fast way to have a heavy powerbook paperweight.

[Rocketman]

Originally posted by dbenesch
The PowerMac G4 was introduced in Fall of 1999, and the Powerbook G4 wasn't introduced until January of 2001. It took a good 15 months to get the G4 into a 1" laptop.

Maybe people shouldn't have such high expectations of getting the G5 in so soon. A dual G4 will do nicely :)

I was a TiG4 early adopter and it is pretty much the sweetist Mac I have ever owned in a variety of ways. And it runs 2 OS's!

When I went from a Mac+ to a P405 my productivity didn't go up much. Then the used IIVx was pretty much a backstep. I got alot done on the 8100av and that prepped me perfectly for the TiG4. That was a HUGE step up.

My next computer (for this particular jobsite) will be a G5 Powerbook.

But other jobsites have been iBooks mainly and lately PB 17's for the guys. Everybody loves the 17's. ESPECIALLY the PC geeks (former). Some of them are prospects for dual PBG4's. No software upgrade issues is a feature not a bug.

Rocketman

[zac4mac]

Swissman and a couple of others know the truth about dual processors, while some of you are going only by 3rd parties and benchmarks. A single app won't see much improvement from dual processors however if you normally run with several apps open, a duallie is a godsend.
The P/S blew out in my dual G4 550(OC'd 500) and I had to fall back on my iBook800 for a couple of weeks. It was so much slower than my duallie it was maddening, I was constantly watching the spinning beach ball. Both running the same system, 1GB RAM in the DP, 640 MB in the 'Book. I firmly believe in multi-processor architecture now, although I'd rather see a G5DP "Top O' the Line" PB than a G4DP.
Doesn't really matter to me tho, my iBook is fast enough for my portable needs.

[QFace]

Originally posted by Photorun

(Note: I say Powerbook because iBooks are using 5400s which is why the iBook G3 900 could often BEAT the Powerbook G4 1 GHz in tests, while the G4 was hunting, reading, writing and accessing the G3 iBook had already gotten and performed with all the info)

Not True!!! iBooks (both G4 and G3) use 4200 RPM drives. When configuring an iBook, click the link to get more information about the hard drives. It explicitely states all drives run at 4200 RPM

[yamabushi]

A dual PB G4 is not very appealing to me. I have grown to hate the G4 - it's so 20th century. A dual G5 17" PB that would disable one when on battery might me okay. A better idea is to have a dual G5 cube for use as a portable render box. Since the DP G5 PB would be most useful when running at full speed with both CPUs a DP G5 cube could be a useful alternative. A cube would at least be less cramped and have better cooling than a PB.

[Catt]

Apple's laptops are underpowered as it stands.
A dual processor G4 will not change this.
With Intel releasing the follow up to the P-M (codenamed Dothan)in 1Q 2004 Apple, and indeed AMD, are going to have to go some to produce a laptop with a better performance:battery life ratio.

Even if we see a G5 at the end of the 1Q 2004 its questionable if this will be as powerful as either Intel's or AMD's Mobile offerings at this time. AMD is tweaking its Fx-51 64 bit processor for mobile use and Intel is at the moment working on getting its next generation desktop chip into a mobile format. I'll be interested to see how this all works out and what each company will have on offer come Summer 2004.

Regardless of what Intel and AMD do I would still be willing to put money on Apple producing the better looking machine, ok it will also probably be the most expensive as well.

[uberman42]

Everybody has the case of the Mondays in this forum thread.:p

[manitoubalck]

Originally posted by Trekkie
To get the same amt of time with two processors your battery is gonna have to be huge.

Either thta or your going to need some really unstable chemicals to hold the charge. Nuclear batteries would solve the problem but I don't ever see that happening.

[shadowfax]

Originally posted by Catt
Regardless of what Intel and AMD do I would still be willing to put money on Apple producing the better looking machine, ok it will also probably be the most expensive as well. i defy you to find me a laptop that performs more than marginally better than a 15 inch PB that costs less.

[stoid]

Yes! tomorrow will herald a new dual 2.0 Ghz G5 12 inch PowerBook, and a Cubesque 20 inch iMac along will speed bumped G5's and a free parfait with any new Mac purchase! :D

Now that's the true meaning of the Apple slogan from the original colorific iMacs, "Yum!"

[manitoubalck]

Originally posted by Catt
Even if we see a G5 at the end of the 1Q 2004 its questionable if this will be as powerful as either Intel's or AMD's Mobile offerings at this time. AMD is tweaking its Fx-51 64 bit processor for mobile use and Intel is at the moment working on getting its next generation desktop chip into a mobile format. I'll be interested to see how this all works out and what each company will have on offer come Summer 2004.

Regardless of what Intel and AMD do I would still be willing to put money on Apple producing the better looking machine, ok it will also probably be the most expensive as well.

Agreed, VoodooPC has the Athlon 64 from the Dark horse AMD looking very powerful,
Intel are always up to something spookey.
And apple have their marketing, and uderperforming G4's.

Apple need to do something soon and a dual core G4 is not the answer, a 1.5-8GHz G5 is however.

[Frobozz]

I'm still amazed that it could be easier to cram two G4's into a laptop than to cram one G5. I'm assuming, as is probably everyone on these boards, that the .09m process would be used for the G5, which would preclude any immediate release of an updated PowerBook.

Personally, if the timeframes going around the grapevine of next May for a G5 PowerBook are correct, I will wait to purchase until then. If I needed one immediately, I would get one of the nice refurb'd 1.25GHz 15" units for $2,099.

As far as G5 PowerMacs, I think the summer 2004 update is the earliest I will purchase on that end-- my dual 1GHz Quicksilver isn't sluggish until I do high-impact 3D modelling. For daily tasks it's more than fast enough.

[Frobozz]

Originally posted by stoid
and a free parfait with any new Mac purchase! :D

Damn, sign me up.

In the immortal words of Eddie Murphy: "Who doesn't like a parfait? I don't know ANYBODY that don't (sp) like a parfait."

[csubear]

Originally posted by JoE950
you missed my point, amd and intel have stuff ready to go that kicks the g4s ass. it seems to be a honest stand in untill the G5 is ready. and um apple already has two different processor vendors, so whats a third matter? dont hit me with marketing bs.. its poor marketing to throw two inferior processors into an already steaming hot laptop.
</begin rant>
dude. sometimes i think everone needs to sit down and have a computer arictechure class.
1. power pc is RISC, and RISC has a future. CISC is dead and has been dead since the Pentium Pro. All intel is doing now is emulating a x86 front end, and breaking things down to RISC instruction.
2. intel is kicking the g4's butt becuase of moto, not powerpc.
3. its not just a simple recompile in xcode. you need to rewrite alot of drivers and what not for x86 devices. Now i will go with the idea that there are freeBSD drivers for alot of x86 things, but they still will need to be tweaked.
4. yes the mach kernal does support fat binaries (which means that you can have the app compiled for multipal platforms in the same binary), but it makes the progams file size much larger, and you have to get all the mac vendors on board. OR offer an emulation layer.

Overall big pain in the butt to supports x86 in just one model. If the switch was ever made it would a) be to all the models b) make ever apple developer angry c) be the death of apple as we know it.

</end rant>

[Spades]

I agree with all the people who would rather have two processors at half the speed. I have a dual processor desktop, and it is true that is not really as fast as the single processor. But it does look faster. Computers do a lot more today than crunch numbers. Everybody seems to know that when it comes to memory, hard drives, etc. Nobody ever seems to think about it when comparing dual to single processors though. Having dual processors means one can be locked up in a CPU intensive process, and the other can still respond to the user. You get much lower visible latency, which makes the experience for the user immensely better. So what if a task takes a few more seconds. The user still spends less time watching a beachball, so they're less aware of the delay, so it looks faster.

Not to mention for the apps that can use multiple processors, it really is faster.

I'm surprised computer makers haven't caught onto this yet. With the average consumer not even needing as much as 1GHz, make that dual 1 GHz and suddenly the system looks faster than a 2.4 GHz.

If Apple offered something like a dual 700 MHz laptop, I would take that over a 1.25 GHz Powerbook in a second.

[csubear]

The problem with the dual G4 as implemented by apple is that it is uses UMA. Both processors are on the same front side bus. What does this mean? non-linear scaling. If one process is acessing an i/o device the other one has to wait to acess memory. While this performance hit can be lessened with more cache, it is still there. i would say if they offered a dual 1 Ghz G4 then i would bye it instead of a 1.6 Ghz anything.

I know steve said that they were haveing a hard time shoving a G5 into a powerbook, and for a powerbook to be an upgrade to the current powerbooks you would need a 1.4-1.6 Ghz G5. Way too much power. But what about a Dual 1.0 Ghz G5? I am sure that would be low power, and you could do some creative power managment while on battery power.

I know that processor heat dissapation does not scale lineraly but i think that a 1Ghz G5 is not out of the scope of a powerbook. what is out of scope is a redesign of the powerbooks motherboard. those kinda of things take time.

i think that a dual 1Ghz G5 powerbook(with power managment) would sell well, and would give apple to more claims. First dual processor notebook, and first 64 bit laptop(excluding that SPARC monster, that thing was like 5 grand or more)

?? who know what job's has up his sleves. all i know is it is a good time to be an apple fan

[primalman]

Originally posted by csubear
</begin rant>
dude. sometimes i think everone needs to sit down and have a computer arictechure class.
1. power pc is RISC, and RISC has a future. CISC is dead and has been dead since the Pentium Pro. All intel is doing now is emulating a x86 front end, and breaking things down to RISC instruction.
2. intel is kicking the g4's butt becuase of moto, not powerpc.
3. its not just a simple recompile in xcode. you need to rewrite alot of drivers and what not for x86 devices. Now i will go with the idea that there are freeBSD drivers for alot of x86 things, but they still will need to be tweaked.
4. yes the mach kernal does support fat binaries (which means that you can have the app compiled for multipal platforms in the same binary), but it makes the progams file size much larger, and you have to get all the mac vendors on board. OR offer an emulation layer.

Overall big pain in the butt to supports x86 in just one model. If the switch was ever made it would a) be to all the models b) make ever apple developer angry c) be the death of apple as we know it.

</end rant>

JoE950, read what he said.

Thank you.

:)

[~Shard~]

So how many people here are like me and feel like staying the hell away from buying a RevA of the next PowerBooks - whether it's a DP G4 or a G5? ;)

[MikeAtari]

Apple has given me a much faster machine with Panther 10.3.
I don't give a d*** what speed Intel processors run at. This machine, a G4 550, is plenty fast now! Shows what the G4 and better OS can do. Compiler optimizations and graphics opts make a big difference.

I'd like to see a Dual G4orG5 at a low? ghz rate, if it can be done.

64 bit processors are real nice, but today, there's nothing that takes advantage of them. Again, a 64 Java VM would be interesting. But, as a programmer, I need a dual machine. Just hate to buy a desktop, because it's stuck at home in a corner, can't take it on the road.

What about the rumor's that IBM was adding Altivec to the G3. They are cross licenced with Moto on this anyway.

[Edot]

Originally posted by iPC
Then you of all people should know that laptops are not for doing intensive work. Never have been, probably never will. The laptop is a niche market... people wanting or "needing" desktop replacement power should not be looking at Apple's laptops to begin with. If you need outright crankin' power in your laptop (all other considerations set aside), you need something with a P4 at 3.2 GHz that has 7200rpm hdd and the Radeon 9600 (128MB DDR)....

You're kidding right? almost 50% of Apple's unit sales are laptops. It is a fact that this market is growing and that it will probably overtake desktops in the next few years.

[tduality]

Originally posted by MikeAtari


For Java Dev, these would be perfect machines.
And we don't need high ghz. 1.0 would be fine.

Simply, the ability to test multi-threaded apps on a laptop would be great. Since Apple already has the OS running on the G4 Desktop, I don't see any major expense in the OS department.

Can't really test threaded code on a single processor.

Uhm...are you sure? Threading in Java is like simulating light weight processes in a Virtual Machine. These are then mapped to the multitasking system of the underlying OS. The JVM itself uses quite a few threads for main(), garbage collection, EventQueue etc as any debugger will be happy to show you. Maybe you meant 'parallization'?

[simply258]

Originally posted by JoE950
where do you get this crap. they wouldnt have even considered the processors if they wouldnt run the apps... they specifically stated that osx (undoubtedly including all the apps supported excluding vpc) would run on that architecture, but they chose ibm.. please dont exaggerate and lie, its not becoming...
if that was the case, why isn't there a windows & a mac version of all the software in the market ? if it was as easy to do as you say, they'd all have versions for both OS's

[Analog Kid]

Originally posted by tduality
Uhm...are you sure? Threading in Java is like simulating light weight processes in a Virtual Machine. These are then mapped to the multitasking system of the underlying OS. The JVM itself uses quite a few threads for main(), garbage collection, EventQueue etc as any debugger will be happy to show you. Maybe you meant 'parallization'?

He didn't say he needed duals to *run* multi-threaded code, he said he wanted them to *test* multi-threaded code.

If you are going to test multi-threaded "write once, run anywhere" code you have to assume it'll see multiple CPUs someday.

The world changes when different threads are running on different CPUs rather than being serialized on a single CPU.

[tduality]

Originally posted by Analog Kid
He didn't say he needed duals to *run* multi-threaded code, he said he wanted them to *test* multi-threaded code.

If you are going to test multi-threaded "write once, run anywhere" code you have to assume it'll see multiple CPUs someday.

The world changes when different threads are running on different CPUs rather than being serialized on a single CPU.

You might assume that it will see multiple CPUs but you don't have to care. If you are using multi-threading in your application you have to take care of the synchronization of the threads for your application to work. From this perspective it doesn't matter whether the OS maps the Lightweight Processes to one or more CPUs. Sure you'll might get some performance improvements but the Java code is the same.

If you are planning to run your code, say as a server process, on a multiple CPU system then sure you have to test for odd behaviour (inappropriate synchronization) and stability. We once saw the JVM frequently crashing on dual CPU Solaris machines. So you better test thoroughly. But this was some 5 years ago. No problems with that any more.

[iPC]

Originally posted by Edot
You're kidding right? almost 50% of Apple's unit sales are laptops. It is a fact that this market is growing and that it will probably overtake desktops in the next few years.
The industry as a whole is selling more and more laptop machines. For those users that actually do need the most power possible, it isn't from the G4 (we knew that for some time with the desktop PowerMacs). Apple's laptops are (now) all G4 based....

Some simple test results here: http://www.barefeats.com/al15b.html

[nitropowered]

I don't care much for a dual g4 powerbook. I would like to see a g5 powerbook out before the 04-05 school year. I would still buy it even if it ment increasing the formfactor from 1" to 1.5" if it means a huge speed boost. I think a lot of people are getting stuck up on asthetics rather than functionallity. I dont really think watercooling is the answer because you still have to get rid of the heat somehow and with a pump and radiator. I would be more in favor or an extruded bottom plate heat sink but i don't know if that is practical (cause a shock might break the processor core, fins getting dirty and impeading dissapation, etc.) Apple needs to ditch the g4 unless moto comes out with a breakthrough version with faster fsb and clock speeds.

[jhedges3]

The much repeated talk of grilling bacon and having 30 minute battery lives in these theoretical PB’s is absurd. If they cannot be cooled to a reasonable level or if battery cannot be increased, why would they be produced in the first place? In other words, as processors change the cooling, weight, thickness, life, etc will also evolve so as to keep up.

[MikeAtari]

you are both write.

I'd like to test and run multi-threaded code.
Yes, I know the threaded code works on a single processor,
but, I'd still like to actually see it, and feel it run on a dual processor. Just to see how effective it is.

I can imagine what it feels like to drive a Harley, while on my bicycle, still, only a Harley feels like a Harley.

A 64 bit processor, the G5 is a great idea, and it does have a future, but, if apple could build a dual G5 laptop even at 1ghz, I'd be very happy.

But, this would be a niche market, within a niche market.

The G5 does have some advantages for the JVM, Java Longs should increase in speed, running in real 64bit registers, instead of 2 32 bit registers.

I'll probably have to wait for the dual-core G5 of the future,
if it ever makes it into an Apple laptop.

But, isn't Apple about having the Future Now?
Firewire, Airport, Airport Extreme, OS X( Unix )....

[Mac Dummy]

Originally posted by ~Shard~
I don’t really care for the idea of dual G4 PowerBooks. To me, laptops are supposed to be light, compact and not workhorses (although I know some people use them for that regardless!) Therefore, having dual processors in a tower, sure, that makes sense, but in a laptop, it seems kind of silly. Plus, if they’re doing this just to get by until the G5 can go into the PowerBooks, wouldn’t this be a slightly expensive endeavor? They would have to re-engineer everything, and for what, 6 months of use until the G5 PBs came out, and a brand new re-engineering effort?

My other concerns are over heat and battery life. I'm sure this thing would melt your lap! Hmm, maybe Apple can make the bottom of the laptop a grill so that you can flip it over and fry some bacon and eggs! ;) But as far as battery life goes, I can’t see how this thing would run for too long with 2 G4s sucking all that power. Plus, isn’t a laptop supposed to be portable? – because it’s hard to be when you can only go half an hour before needing to recharge it. That kind of defeats the whole purpose.

Although I think a DP laptop is a interesting idea, I don’t know if it makes a hell of a lot of sense...

I'm with you, why waste money that could be spent developing the G5 chip for the Powerbooks, besides I just purchased a new 12" powerbook and I'm happy with it, its fast enough.:)

[Santiago]

Originally posted by MikeAtari
A 64 bit processor, the G5 is a great idea, and it does have a future, but, if apple could build a dual G5 laptop even at 1ghz, I'd be very happy.

A single-processor 2 GHz G5 would be faster, cheaper, and likely more energy-efficient.

[FightTheFuture]

well, if this could turn out to be true - imagine the price drop on the current G4 powerbooks. it would throw the ibook to obsoletion!

[billyboy]

The G4 has a way to go yet, unless Apple get suckered by the super minority speed freaks and get really hung up on MHz numbers rather than pursue the other options that are available to increasing productivity.

Without a tweak of hardware, Panther has sped up Macs in general. Also if they could add faster hard drives, and stick 1GB RAM as standard, they get an appealing and extremely nippy PB - without doing any reengineering. Those modifications along with a few minor speed upgrades and PRICE DROPS could bring th ePB closer in line pricewise to PCs and also add many months life to the existing range, which is already selling in big numbers despite a vocal few saying oh no, Macs are soo slow compared to pcs.

I reckon Apple have until next summer befre they will have to introduce the next quantum leap in PBs - dual 2 ghx G4 PB or dual 1GHz G5 or whatever stuff they dream up.

[thecow]

Originally posted by sjc1204
For example, I recently replaced the original 5400 rpm drive in my G4 AGP 466 MHz with a new Maxtor 80 GB 7200 rpm and it's like having a new machine.

Can you post a link to were you got that drive?

[birddog]

Sorry Billyboy... Think I private messaged my first one by accident...

My question for all the hardcore users here who know way more than me is this:

I'm looking to replace my desktop G4 with a laptop. Should I go for the high end 15" PB that's out now, wait for a possible dual processor version or wait for the G5 version?

There seems some different opinions over the (albeit possible) dual version being better or not than the early G5 version. I don't upgrade often so whatever I get has to last a while (no interm solutions). At the same time, I'm not waiting until mid 2005 to get free of my 'desktop shackles'. Also, I'm running all the standard Graphic and Web Design Apps and find Panther moves a tad slow on a 500mhz machine.

bd.

[Nemesis]

Originally posted by Macrumors
Appleinsider claims (http://www.appleinsider.com/news.php?id=242) that dual G4 PowerBooks may "see the light of day" if the G5 is unable to be incorporated into the current PowerBook chassis in a reasonable timeframe.


This is the dumbest thing I've seen in rumors lately. So, they really believe that it's easier to put 2 (TWO!) processors in a PBook instead of ONE?

Jeez, this is unbelievable!! Those guys have brains?

[wizard]

Not really dumb at all if the 970 can't hit the performace per watt figure required for the next rev something else would have to be considered. Considering that MAC/OS is high optimized for MSP a PowerBook could benefit from it greatly. Give the OS the ability to shut down one processor and we have an even better solution for the portable.

So we have Apple, who by the way has admitted that it will be a long time before the 970 is in a laptop, looking into alternatives. Is that so hard to believe?

What coud be the even bigger surprise is if Apple pulls out something completely differrent from the G4 and the 970. Would that be dumb? As long as Apple continues to move the PowerBook forward performance wise (in every way that it can be measure on a portable) then I will be happy. If the put in a slow 970 that goobles POWER quickly then I won't be to happy. Look at it this way every bench mark has indicated that a G4 running faster on a faster bus would be verycompetitive in the 32 bit areas with the 970, if Apple and Motorola can pull such a processor out of the hat why not use it?

Thanks
Dave


Originally posted by Nemesis
This is the dumbest thing I've seen in rumors lately. So, they really believe that it's easier to put 2 (TWO!) processors in a PBook instead of ONE?

Jeez, this is unbelievable!! Those guys have brains?

[wizard]

The only thing you have to realize is that ANY heat disipated via heat is lost battery capacity. Many of us are not willing to give up on battery time to support a faster processor.

Personally I think that Apple should be pushing both IBM and Motorola to come develope low power high speed 32 bit processors. And then take what ever is the best. They may already be working on a low power 64 bit machine but I still have this belief that the economics won't be right along iwth the power issue.

Thanks
Dave



Originally posted by nitropowered
I don't care much for a dual g4 powerbook. I would like to see a g5 powerbook out before the 04-05 school year. I would still buy it even if it ment increasing the formfactor from 1" to 1.5" if it means a huge speed boost. I think a lot of people are getting stuck up on asthetics rather than functionallity. I dont really think watercooling is the answer because you still have to get rid of the heat somehow and with a pump and radiator. I would be more in favor or an extruded bottom plate heat sink but i don't know if that is practical (cause a shock might break the processor core, fins getting dirty and impeading dissapation, etc.) Apple needs to ditch the g4 unless moto comes out with a breakthrough version with faster fsb and clock speeds.

[wizard]

If your developing multi thread code that you believe will at some time run on a SMP machine then you have to test and possibly develop on an SMP machine. Considering we are talking about Apple hardware here there is a very high likely hood that your code will encounter multple processors, so prudence dictates at least through testing of the code in that environment.

As long as your multithread software has the ptotentila to run on an SMP you can not assume that it will work just because of previous efforts. Frankly it isn't a question of a little bit of an improvement, depending on application the improvement can be staggering. To really no how well you have parttioned your application for SMP support you have to run it on a SMP machine to determine overall improvement in execution.

Lastly not everyone is wrapped up in Java development.

Dave


Originally posted by tduality
You might assume that it will see multiple CPUs but you don't have to care. If you are using multi-threading in your application you have to take care of the synchronization of the threads for your application to work. From this perspective it doesn't matter whether the OS maps the Lightweight Processes to one or more CPUs. Sure you'll might get some performance improvements but the Java code is the same.

If you are planning to run your code, say as a server process, on a multiple CPU system then sure you have to test for odd behaviour (inappropriate synchronization) and stability. We once saw the JVM frequently crashing on dual CPU Solaris machines. So you better test thoroughly. But this was some 5 years ago. No problems with that any more.

[wizard]

Well I have to disagree on a number of counts here.

First two processors are almost always more responsive than a single processor machine. That is from the users perspective. So if you want a snappy machine and often run a number of apps at once, or a few CPU bound ones, then a SMP machine is a very appealing machine.

Second; All single thread apps benefit to some degree from SMP. An app can beneift from having the CPU all to itself with a marginal improvement. Or it can beneift when using system services.

The proportion of SMP aware applications is steadly increasing. Even games are being writen to support SMP. Genreally yes they are more cpu intense programs anyways, but do you really need more than 1GHz to run an editor.

Fourth there are many applicaitons that at multithreaded that do benefit from SMP even though they may not be CPU bound.

So while there is a class of users and programs that do not beneift from SMP it is a vey small number. On top of this is OS/X that certainly does benefit all the time from SMP. SMP is actually a cheaper way to provide a responsive machne to people who use them intensely, actually easier on the wallet.

Finally why would anyone make use of single thread apps to test a SMP machine? Such tests are completely invalid from the user perspective. There are very few people nowadays that run only one app on a machine to squeeze out maximum performance. So test a SMP machine agianst a single processor running a mix of applications at the same time. Then tell me which machine produces the better results.

The story of the G5 pretty much spells out the desire for SMP in the market place. The 2GHz machine is far out stripping the other machines in sales. Many of these are professionals, do you really think that they would spend money on hardware that won't produce? Apple; through the G4, has trained a whole generation of computer users to expect the benefits of a dual processor machine. It is an education that won't be easily undone as it has been shown to be a benefit to many crafts.

Ask yourself this; will a single processor G5 at 2GHz be any match for the current 2X SMP machine? The answer is clearly no. Modern operating systems and other technologies suggest strongly that single processor machies are a thing of the past!!!

Thanks
Dave



Originally posted by Photorun
two verses one debate (debacle)

The thing is two chips really aren't faster, or that much faster than one. Go to macspeedzone.com or barefeats.com or ones run by macaddict.com, only apps that take advantage of two chips are actually faster on two chips. This really serves how much of the entire Mac market? 10% Maybe? Probably not even? Sure some hard core Photoshop user would be itchy to do a Guassin blur in 4 seconds instead of 7 seconds, but c'mon, what's it really about? Bragging rights, that's what, "I got two chips.. .WOOT!" When in fact the extra bucks could have easily been spent on RAM which for most things will see a better increase in speed than two chips. Two chips is a bit of an Apple smoke screen. Brag factor? 10. Reality factor? 1.

Just wait for the single processor G5 late next year or early 2005, two chips isn't going to give most people any real gains, only losses to their wallets.

[lynrd]

Originally posted by themadchemist
WHO said that? It takes a lot to build an OS to run on an entirely different platform like that. It's not just like you recompile for x86 and viola! there it goes.


ref: http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,496270,00.asp

Apparently it is already out there....probably as a backup plan had IBM/Motorola boinked up the deal. I don't like the idea either, for several reasons:

1: Apple is a HARDWARE company. The OS exists because you can't really sell the hardware without an operating system. Porting the OS over onto the generic X86 platform would inevitably lead to clones popping up everywhere....with no bucks going to Apple. Also, the huge variation of x86 motorboard/processor/video card etc is going to lead to some machines being less stable than, say, my venerable dual G4-450...which runs rings around some hot shot newer "Graphics Capable" PCs. That would lead to cries of "OSX sucks" from the x86 crowd, which would be annoying after just getting the OS9 folks settled down.

2: History has shown that it is a dead end road...remember Be.? Great little dual processor machines, but when the decision was made to port the BeOS over to X86 because of chip supply problems, the company is bankrupt a year later (I know there were a lot of other factors involved, but that is the basic sequence of events).

3. If you do a direct feature for feature comparison between a Mac and a "equivilent" PC, say a Dell, the price difference REALLY isn't that great (Priced any dual Xeon workstations lately??)....not great enough to accept the supstandard hardware that would come with it, not to mention the crap technical support.

And personally, I believe I'd be hotter for a dual G-4 laptop than a G-5 laptop, so long as I can keep my 12" PBook to cook grilled cheese sandwiches on...

[iChan]

I just don't see a dualie PB as a good idea, what's the point?

I just wanna see the 15-inch g5 1.8Ghz Rev 2 by Summer 2004 and then I'll be happy!

[Trekkie]

Originally posted by iChan
I just don't see a dualie PB as a good idea, what's the point?

Well a couple of points come to mind.

A) Fastest Laptop from a Teir 1 Vendor.

B) No one else does it. Maybe it's time to set the bar again.

C) Putting a G5 into a laptop is a thermal challenge and they can't get it done by next Summer.

IANATE (I am not a thermal engineer) but I do work with servers all day long and I've seen the PowerPC 970 in a blade from IBM.

Knowing it's thermal output at Dual 1.6GHz, I would be pretty surprise (but nonetheless excstatic) to see one in a laptop that didn't roast your table or your lap while you worked on it.

[Dont Hurt Me]

The new process for the G5 is supposed to ship in january in bulk so i would say we may see a G5 powerbook in March. I think staying with Moto in any form on the imac and powerbook lines would be a mistake unless they just need more time. It would be pretty easy in my mind to use a lower speed G5 say 1.2 & 1.4 ghz with say a reduced bus speed of 400 and the power consumption would be about the same of the last powerbooks.

[~Shard~]

Just my hunch, but I think we'll see the G5 in the iMacs before the PBs - but not much sooner. I think that's the whole point - Apple will not update the consumer line in such a manner before the Pro line is updated, so when the G5 iMacs are released, the G5 PBs will be close behind. Who knows, maybe the G5 PBs will actually come out before the iMacs, but I guess we'll see. On the one hand, look how long it took for the G4 to make its way to the iMacs after it was released in the PMs - however, that was dealing with the painfully slow progression we had to endure with Apple. Now that it's an IBM world, updates will be better and more frequent.

However, I don't see the PBs going dual, when the G5 PBs will probably be coming late spring or in summer. A dual PB would be the type of model that resides at the top of the product line, i.e. the 17" PB, and when the PB G5s are released, I don't see them having a combination of G5s and G4s in the line-up - it'lll be all G5s. And with the G5 heating issues as they are, it will take enough engineering to put one of those chips in a PB, let alone 2, so we will definitely not see DP G5 PBs!

Plus, how much power do you really need? Right now the 17" PBs are pretty damn fast and efficient. I think this is another case of people wanting more power "just cuz" and not stopping to think if they really need it. But, I'm not trying to generalize here - I realize everyone has different needs and requirements. In the end though, I can't see Apple releasing DP PBs anytime soon. There would be too much to change and redesign on the insides of the machine to warrant a change, especially when the Apple engineers are already hard at work on designing the G5 PB.

[Trekkie]

Originally posted by ~Shard~

Plus, how much power do you really need? Right now the 17" PBs are pretty damn fast and efficient. I think this is another case of people wanting more power "just cuz" and not stopping to think if they really need it. But, I'm not trying to generalize here - I realize everyone has different needs and requirements. In the end though, I can't see Apple releasing DP PBs anytime soon. There would be too much to change and redesign on the insides of the machine to warrant a change, especially when the Apple engineers are already hard at work on designing the G5 PB.

I agree. I personally run on the PB 12" with the 867MHz proc I bought back in March. I'm not complaining for speed.

Though on the iMac we could use more oomph for iMovie. Since we moved away from family we are making movies / burning to DVD a lot more and faster encode times would be nice.

Other than that my laptop works for me. I do want to get a G5 for a desktop to replace my last bastion of Windows in the house, but honestly I have problems with Quicken and need better features. It really amazes me they get away with the excuse for a money management. but I digress

[dongmin]

Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
The new process for the G5 is supposed to ship in january in bulk so i would say we may see a G5 powerbook in March. I think staying with Moto in any form on the imac and powerbook lines would be a mistake unless they just need more time. It would be pretty easy in my mind to use a lower speed G5 say 1.2 & 1.4 ghz with say a reduced bus speed of 400 and the power consumption would be about the same of the last powerbooks.

check out some of the barefeats tests (http://www.barefeats.com/g5.html). The G5 is NOT that much faster than the G4 at the same clockspeed, and the 7457 is definitely more power-efficient. We need more G5 optimizations before we can truly say the G5 is a better chip than the G4.

A dual 1.4 ghz G4 blows away the single 1.6 ghz and 1.8 ghz G5s in multiprocessor-aware tasks. So performance-wise, it's not a bad idea to stick with dual G4s for the time being. Of course, marketing-wise and perception-wise, it's hard to persuade people now days that the G4 gives you comparable, or better performance, than the G5. The best mobile solution right now is a dual G4 set-up where you purr along with just one processor using the battery and then step up to dual processors when you're plugged in.

We'll have to wait and see what the 970+ brings in terms of power-saving features. Assuming that it doesn't get overly hot, it'd be nice to have a 2.0 ghz 970 in a PB that can step down to 1.0 ghz in battery mode and crank back up to 2.0 ghz when plugged in.

[Six]

i am typing to you from a new 15 inch AlBook, and its nice and hot on the lap, and the battery gets sucked pretty fast... i could only imagine a dual processor pbook... it'd be nice to have, but my lap would be burnt, and it would have no battery life im afraid.. i can't even get through a whole movie on this computer with out it's battery going out. and thats on dvd playback battery settings!

[okatu]

Dual G4 Laptop - hmmm OK, it's possible - but tell me how long will the batts last?? It's only bout 4h on the single one, so if we get 2h u can be lucky, and for what would I need a laptop with 2h stand-by??? So I don't think there is any reason to put duals into laptops...that's what desktops are for.

[~Shard~]

Originally posted by okatu
Dual G4 Laptop - hmmm OK, it's possible - but tell me how long will the batts last?? It's only bout 4h on the single one, so if we get 2h u can be lucky, and for what would I need a laptop with 2h stand-by??? So I don't think there is any reason to put duals into laptops...that's what desktops are for.

Exactly. As I said in my earlier post, some people need to stop and think "why", and "do I actually need a DP laptop?" before wanting one "just because". The current laptops are damn good machines and I think there are some people who need to sit back and think if this is a product they actually require. And if they do, then maybe they need to settle for a desktop and forego the portability! I think a quad-processor G5 PM would be awesome too, but would I ever need it? No.

DP laptops won't happen - it doesn't make sense to re-engineer the PowerBooks to accommodate this when the Apple engineers are already busy re-engineering the PB for the G5, which will be out around summer, I'm predicting.

[dongmin]

Originally posted by okatu
Dual G4 Laptop - hmmm OK, it's possible - but tell me how long will the batts last?? It's only bout 4h on the single one, so if we get 2h u can be lucky, and for what would I need a laptop with 2h stand-by??? So I don't think there is any reason to put duals into laptops...that's what desktops are for. You guys are totally missing the point. Having dual processors give you the flexibility to use only one processor when using the battery and both processors when using AC power. Battery usage doesn't become any more of an issue than when you have a single processor with power management. And I don't understand why people are arguing that you don't 'need' dual processors. If that's a reasonable solution to adding more power, why the heck not? PowerBooks are supposed to be desktop replacements, not just complements. Right now, there is a serious performance gap between laptops and desktops. If Apple can bridge this gap with dual processors, why not?

[DrGruv1]

dug up an old thread...

Maybe this could happen?

Dual G4 Powerbook? :cool:

[CaptainCaveMann]

WHO said that? It takes a lot to build an OS to run on an entirely different platform like that. It's not just like you recompile for x86 and viola! there it goes.

Anyway, it would be ridiculous on Apple's part to put an Intel or an AMD processor in its computers, from a marketing perspective. Apple has spend a great deal of time and money stating that the PowerPC architecture is inherently better than the x86 architecture (this is an argument that I would agree with, from various reading I've done about the two architectures). Apple's statement is one that has been gaining momentum with the great performance of the G5. To switch to an x86 for just the laptop line would be to indirectly state a preference of Intel/AMD over IBM processors. That would be a horrific move!

It's probably also not a good idea to diversify your line SO MUCH as to have different companies designing processors for your different lines.

Plus, Intel sucks. AMD's good, but in the long term, I'm a PPC fan, just based on its philosophy for architecture: Simplicity & efficiency.PowerPC architecture is better huh? Then why do the pm processors run faster and cooler? The pm chip is arguably the best laptop chip on the face of the planet right now, and why is that you ask? Ill tell you why, because i can go to the store and buy one in a laptop right now!!!! Jeez so apple has a better chip huh? Is that NOW or in another 6 months? And another 6 months, and another and another, well you get the point. :rolleyes:

[cyanide]

PowerPC architecture is better huh? Then why do the pm processors run faster and cooler? The pm chip is arguably the best laptop chip on the face of the planet right now, and why is that you ask? Ill tell you why, because i can go to the store and buy one in a laptop right now!!!! Jeez so apple has a better chip huh? Is that NOW or in another 6 months? And another 6 months, and another and another, well you get the point. :rolleyes:

Our friend that you were directing this comment toward stated his preference for the architecture of the chip. I agree with him, IBM's chips are more well-designed than Intel's. Your point is valid, that you can go buy a laptop with a PM now, but in reality it will perform no better than a G4 at roughly 5/8's speed. As far as cooler.. all i have to say is Phonebook VS. Magazine.

[CaptainCaveMann]

Our friend that you were directing this comment toward stated his preference for the architecture of the chip. I agree with him, IBM's chips are more well-designed than Intel's. Your point is valid, that you can go buy a laptop with a PM now, but in reality it will perform no better than a G4 at roughly 5/8's speed. As far as cooler.. all i have to say is Phonebook VS. Magazine.Who cares how "well" ibm designs their chips.What matters is they cant or they are not producing cooler faster chips in the NOW. Thanks for your comment though "Newbie". No offense

[Platform]

If they manage to put a dual G4 in the current case well then why not a G5 :confused: Dual G4 would be very nice to have but not for a single dime more than the current once :mad:

[~Shard~]

dug up an old thread...

Maybe this could happen?

Dual G4 Powerbook? :cool:

Very doubtful. If anything, we'd see a dual-core G4 PowerBook, but I think it is highly doubtful that we'd ever see a dual G4 PowerBook. :cool:

[Platform]

Very doubtful. If anything, we'd see a dual-core G4 PowerBook, but I think it is highly doubtful that we'd ever see a dual G4 PowerBook. :cool:

OK that sound more belivable

Will a dual core G4 have the same performance as a dual G4 :confused:
It will be very nice :D

[~Shard~]

OK that sound more belivable

Will a dual core G4 have the same performance as a dual G4 :confused:
It will be very nice :D

On a very high level, yes, it is basically 2 chips in one. Just do a search for dual-core in the Forums and you'll find many discussions on the subject, many of which are quite technical if you're wanting to know more.

[Platform]

On a very high level, yes, it is basically 2 chips in one. Just do a search for dual-core in the Forums and you'll find many discussions on the subject, many of which are quite technical if you're wanting to know more.

thank you ;)

[DrGruv1]

two 7447a at 1.67ghz
two hard drives?
too much money :D

seriously though, not sure they would want to redsign the mother board for two chips - not with the g5 coming

[wdlove]

two 7447a at 1.67ghz
two hard drives?
too much money :D

seriously though, not sure they would want to redesign the mother board for two chips - not with the g5 coming

I suppose that a lot will depend on how long it will be for the G5 PowerBook to arrive. Apple definitely needs to update the PowerBook. Increase speed yes. A dual core would provide marketing value.

[Photorun]

seriously though, not sure they would want to redsign the mother board for two chips - not with the g5 coming

Except reality is G5 PB whiners need to get a grip, there may never be a G5 in a Powerbook. It's like Apple people who want this G5 Powerbook are as gullible as peecee types who think that getting the fast P4 makes them a geek god... reality is, it doesn't work that way.

IBM is developing new G4 chips that can have dual core, very high busses, reaching upwards to 3 GHz, and most importantly, can run 64 and 32 bit. Ooops, actually MOST importantly, these chips take up a LOT less power and use a lot less heat than the G5. I'm guessing from the clueless posts though Apple could release a G4 2.8 GHz Powerbookt at MWSF that can run 64/32 and get eight hours battery life and I'd still have to hear all these G5 Powerbook whiners who will make comments about how they're STILL going to wait for the G5, programmed to think it's all about the G and the 5.

G5 is not necessarily the way to go for portables, the way to go is simply faster processors, better bus speeds, ability to scale 64/32 bit, and less heat. How Apple does it or what moniker they stick on it is irrelevant... I wish somehow you people would wake up and realize this.

[pawnstar]

freescale (make G4s) are developing uprated G4s that drop straight into existing designs. Also their dual core G4 have a 'system on a chip' so the design for the rest on the computer is simpler - they also have a 667Mhz bus, as opposed to the current 167Mhz.

In addition they have 64bit stuff in the pipeline. IBM seem to concentrate on server style processors and Freescale on more portable stuff, both use PowerPC technology though.

[gangst]

this could happen, but personally i think it is totally impractical.
1) battery life-will be utterly poor unless the thing carries car battery
2)why put dual processors in, when u can just bump the speed up on the cheap and then bring out g5 powerbooks
3)seriously how much work can you get done on the move on a laptop, very little, untill the battery goes out.you might aswell sit at a powermac g5 and get it done just as quick.

this is probably just a pre-mswf wild rumourto get evry1s hopes up.

[thatwendigo]

I haven't posted in a while, nor have I read all of this thread, but the first few pages were more than enough to give me material to slam down a couple of lines with.

First of all, the 970FX is already being fabbed at 90nm - a previous poster seemed to think otherwise - and that doesn't exactly help the heat dissipation characteristics. You see, when a chip is shrunk in overall surface area, you're trying to edge out the excess thermal energy from a smaller space. True, the overall amount is lower, but that doesn't mean anything if there's a worse ratio of heat to surface. I've done the math before, but the 7447A (the G4 that's currently in PowerBooks) is a far more efficient design than the current 970 line. When you add to that the fact that Freescale's MPC7448 chip is going to drop roughly a third to a half of the existing heat (from 12-16 watts to a mere 10) while clocking up to 1.7-1.8ghz, raising the bus to 200mhz, and working with existing pin-outs... Is it really that hard to realize why the 970 is looking less and less likely?

I would be deeply surprised to see the 970 in any incarnation of the PowerBook before WWDC, and that's an extreme outside chance. For that matter, I would be disappointed to see the 970 in a PowerBook at alll. There are better options out there and people are seemingly forgetting that the big push this year is for dual-core designs that will be pushing multithreading and simultaneous multitasking in the mobile sphere. Let's not forget that the Dothan Pentium-M's replacement is due to show up as a dual-core under the Merom codename sometime this year. It's not for nothing that Intel trashed Tejas and the Prescott 4ghz+ designs and it looks as if all of the big players are looking towards paralellization as the new savior. Even IBM has plans for the 970MP sometime in the near future, though there's no chance in hell that will be a mobile processor.

Our best hope is still Freescalle and the MPC8641, whether in dual or single core, due to the SoC integration of many of the components and the massive efficiency when compared to the previous 'Books. Even with a single core, you'd be running a 1.8-2.0ghz core with a 1MB L2 cache, on-die 667mhz DDR2 controller (faster and cooler than PC3200 SO-DIMMs, incidentally), integrated SATA, SATA2, and PCI-E 24 lane controllers on the chip, four gigabit MAC controllers with hardware encryption, and a pair of 128-bit dual precision vector units that make IBM's implementation of AltiVec look like a pale, weak joke. The dual-core package, at 1.8ghz, runs a relatively svelte 22 watts (the same as a previous generation TiBook or a Pentium M 1.6ghz), and has advanced cache integrity features that let the processors share their prefetching at the L1 point.

So, why should we want the G5, again? Because the number is higher?

Feh.

[thatwendigo]

Will a dual core G4 have the same performance as a dual G4 :confused:
It will be very nice :D

Unless there's something deeply flawed in the way they design or manufacture, a dual-core should beat the living hell out of a dual-processor setup. This is for several reasons, but the most important are latency, system overhead, and other internal slowdowns. To put it simply, dual-core chips make it so that the computer has less distance to transmit information across and allow for faster interaction of the processors and their support systems.

There's also the small matter of the core redesign and enhancements, similar to the way that Intel made a VERY nice chip out of their Pentium 3 when the Pentium-M was brought up. The MPC8641 is going to be better than a G4, even at the same clockspeed, and it's also going to be faster and not have the bus bottleneck.

[~Shard~]

Thanks for your insight thatwendigo - and good to see you on the forums again, it has been a while, old friend!

[thatwendigo]

Thanks for your insight thatwendigo - and good to see you on the forums again, it has been a while, old friend!

Between the incessant yammering and the roughness of working in wholesalle right before the holidays, I just didn't have the heart for it like I used to. Then I went and met Miss Right and, well... My time isn't as free as it once was. :D

[~Shard~]

Between the incessant yammering and the roughness of working in wholesalle right before the holidays, I just didn't have the heart for it like I used to. Then I went and met Miss Right and, well... My time isn't as free as it once was. :D

Well then, congratulations are in order! Work has kept me pretty busy as well.

Anywho, I guess we should continue our little discussion in the form of PMs instead of in this thread, although this is kinda fun too - it's always fun to hijack a thread... ;) :cool:

[ts1973]

I haven't posted in a while, nor have I read all of this thread, but the first few pages were more than enough to give me material to slam down a couple of lines with.

What took you so long ;). Oh yes, sorry, Miss Right came along (best of luck !).

Good to see you posting again, so maybe some of the "negative" posters out there can finally get a grip and see through the G5-myth.

[beseku]

http://www.theappleblog.com/2005/01/10/powerbook-speed-bumps-confirmed/

and

http://www.engadget.com/entry/1234000877026843/