PDA

View Full Version : iBook G3's


arn
May 20, 2002, 03:18 PM
Per a MacSurfer.com (http://www.macsurfer.com) link, MacUser.co.uk (http://www.macuser.co.uk/SpyDa/php3/openframe.php3?page=/newnews/newsarticle.php3?id=2013) posted a report on the new iBook. From their sources, it appears G3's seem to be throttled at 700mhz presently:

However, Apple has been unable to procure G3 chips running at faster than 700MHz despite the announcement of a 1GHz version from IBM last year, this product is yet to ship. Apple has also so far rejected calls to move the iBook which is its last remaining G3-based product to the G4 processor. Sources have indicated that this is in order to maintain a distinction between its consumer and professional portable lines...

They also mention that the iBook may need a redesign to incorporate a G4... but appears to be speculation on their part.

allpar
May 20, 2002, 03:23 PM
As one who has a G4 upgrade in his G3, I don't understand why a G4 would require a motherboard redesign.

King Cobra
May 20, 2002, 03:25 PM
I would not be at all surprised if the iBooks are updated to a G4 in some 6 to 8 months. I think that the iBooks deserve a G4, mostly because I heard somewhere that high speed G3 chips were becoming hard to manufacture, or something along those lines, resulting in high costs. Once these iBooks are updated once more some 6 months time from now, they SHOULD have a G4 in them. Although, a 700MHz G3 is already rather fast.
__________________

Any time is a great time for iPod.
Working on avatar and new signature...
Planning to retire current signature.

arn
May 20, 2002, 03:29 PM
Originally posted by allpar
As one who has a G4 upgrade in his G3, I don't understand why a G4 would require a motherboard redesign.

I think it they presume it would be case design due to heat issues...

again - that part is all speculation.

arn

dantec
May 20, 2002, 03:40 PM
Firstly, I think Motorola needs a kick in the butt...

Secondly, G3's must be getting expensive to manufacture because there isn't much market for them (iBooks vs. Powermac's, Powerbook's, iMac's & eMacs). From what I have understood, PowerPC's that are used in computers & devices are different, making IBM manufacture a relatively small amount of a special chip. (Correct me if i'm wrong)

Thirdly, I do not believe at all that there are problems with G3's running at 1ghz. If there where why was the chip announced.

Fourthly, the iBook can't support Quartz Extreme (now 16mb of ram), so it should get all the help it can get. I have heard that some parts of Quartz are Alvitec optimized, but I have no proof.

Finally, even S.J. admitted that OS X needs a G4. We will see if 10.2. has any optimizations at all besides Quartz extreme, which might save this iBook.

King Cobra
May 20, 2002, 04:13 PM
Originally posted by dantec
Finally, even S.J. admitted that OS X needs a G4. We will see if 10.2. has any optimizations at all besides Quartz extreme, which might save this iBook.

Originally posted by dantec
Finally, even S.J. admitted that OS X needs a G4. We will see if 10.2. has any optimizations at all besides Quartz extreme, which might save this iBook.

No offense, but after reading what Backtothemac had posted about running a Jaguar beta on his iBook, I think he would not be happy. He says that his iBook runs plenty fast on a G3.

As for Jaguar on iBooks (say, G3 vs. G4) I think dantec and B2TM are correct. OS X 10.2 would probably run much faster than any previous versions of OS, but dantec may be accurate in saying that OS X needs the G4. So a G4 iBook does seem critical for the future of OS X in, say, 2003. I will wait for that.

On a quick note, my theory of 3-way processors, since the iBook, the only new Apple computer, shipped with a G3, we probably will not see a G5 at New York. If you haven't seen my theory, here it is:

Here is my theory about 3-way processors:
There are three types of processors that are of the main focus: the G3, the G4 and the G5. It would make the least bit of sense for Apple to use three lines of computer chips on five lines of products. What would consumers think? I would assume safely that it would be much easier for Apple to use only two types of processors: one for the basic consumer and one for the pro models. Since both models must suit people who will not want something slow, and since the G3 would not perform as well with OS X as a G4, since OS X uses the G4 V. Engine, the G3 would be almost useless for a processor. Also, as someone mentioned, the price of high speed G3 chips is too high, so in order to compete with speed, Apple would have to use G4 chips.
__________________

Any time is a great time for iPod.
Working on avatar and new signature...
Planning to retire current signature.

Backtothemac
May 20, 2002, 04:39 PM
Originally posted by dantec
Firstly, I think Motorola needs a kick in the butt...

Secondly, G3's must be getting expensive to manufacture because there isn't much market for them (iBooks vs. Powermac's, Powerbook's, iMac's & eMacs). From what I have understood, PowerPC's that are used in computers & devices are different, making IBM manufacture a relatively small amount of a special chip. (Correct me if i'm wrong)

Thirdly, I do not believe at all that there are problems with G3's running at 1ghz. If there where why was the chip announced.

Fourthly, the iBook can't support Quartz Extreme (now 16mb of ram), so it should get all the help it can get. I have heard that some parts of Quartz are Alvitec optimized, but I have no proof.

Finally, even S.J. admitted that OS X needs a G4. We will see if 10.2. has any optimizations at all besides Quartz extreme, which might save this iBook.

Man, I never thought I would see so many people continue to speculate of on feature of the OS ;)

Let me clear this up once and for all. Everyone listening. At least the iBook 600's that have the 8 meg ati will get a benifit. I am seeing huge, and I mean absolutly friggin huge differences in 10.1 and 10.2. I have been running the beta for a few days, and cannot get a spinning beachball. At all! The only time I get one is when IE is rendering HTML (will that ever change?) So. To clarify, QE will work, and these new iBooks will be even smoother than mine. Hey anyone want a used iBook...JJ

iGav
May 20, 2002, 05:18 PM
Thirdly, I do not believe at all that there are problems with G3's running at 1ghz. If there where why was the chip announced.


Maybe IBM are getting the Motorola syndrome and announcing chips (remember the 500Mhz G4?? heh heh) before they can actually produce them in bulk...... :p

Actually I shouldn't joke about the possibilities of IBM doing a Moto with regards to the PPC chip....... that's too scary a thought!!!! :p :p :p

os4
May 20, 2002, 06:23 PM
Originally posted by dantec
Firstly, I think Motorola needs a kick in the butt...

Fourthly, the iBook can't support Quartz Extreme (now 16mb of ram), so it should get all the help it can get. I have heard that some parts of Quartz are Alvitec optimized, but I have no proof.

Finally, even S.J. admitted that OS X needs a G4. We will see if 10.2. has any optimizations at all besides Quartz extreme, which might save this iBook.


If you read any spec info concerning Quartz Extreme, it clearly states that 32Mb is the optimal amount, NOT the required amount. Anyway, if the requirement for Apple to release hardware is that it must perfectly support the company's FUTURE software releases, when would we ever get new hardware?! So what if Apple released information about Quartz Extreme? A person that buys a computer today has made the decision that he needs it today, not tomorrow. Everyone loves to whine about "I bought my computer yesterday, and today Apple released a new machine ... Damn Apple for doing that to me!"

I have been running 10.2 on a 500 Mhz iBook and I have to totally disagree with whoever claimed that 10.2 screams on a G3. I get the redesigned blue beach ball all the time. In fact, the Finder crashes frequently, and there don't appear very many optimizations in place yet. Let's hope that is what the next 8 weeks before MWNY will bring. I do admit that many of the new features (e.g., search and spring-loaded folders) are awesome. I can't wait to have the final release.

SPG
May 20, 2002, 07:20 PM
I don't think that any of us are surprised that the iBook still has a G3, dissapointed, but not surprised. The iBook may be a small machine with a small screen, but it is still meant to be a "digital hub" and all the digital hub stuff that deals with video benefits from altivec, hell MPEG2 transcoding for DVD demands altivec, and even OSX benefits greatly from it. If I were going to buy a laptop this week I don't think that the iBook would be my first choice, especially when you see what laeftover and used G4tiBooks are going for.

AlejandroGonzo
May 20, 2002, 09:13 PM
Oh cmon. If the new software were being released in 2 years, maybe, but 10.2 comes out this summer. Don't be a sucker.

In the P.C. world, ANY new computer will be able to run P.C. programs for a good deal in the future (or at least longer than a couple months). You might try to bad mouth P.C.s, and there are lots of things wrong with them, but that is how it should be.

~/indigo
May 20, 2002, 09:42 PM
Don't be worried about the G3 in the iBook. It has a HUGE L2 cache and a decent clock on it. It is far from being a "bad computer."

As for what others are saying about QE, it would NOT be the reason for performance increases on a system with a Rage 128 (sorry but that is just Jaguar being a bit snappier in general or it is your imagination). Perhaps they did a bit more work on the general 2D acceleration but QE is not supposed to make any calls that card would understand.

I think that the big issues keeping us from getting a G4 iBook are:
-heat dissipation
-differentiation from the TiBook line

If I didn't need AltiVec for some of the code I write, I would get one of these units in a second.

Jeff.

dongmin
May 20, 2002, 09:45 PM
1. As Arn noted, much of what the MacUserUK article says about Apple rolling out 700 mhz G3 is speculation.

2. My guess for why Apple didn't introduce G3s higher than 700 mhz is to distance it a bit from the PowerBooks. If the PowerBooks were at 1 ghz, I think Apple might have gone as high as 800 mhz, if not higher.

3. Five to six months from now, I think you'll see Apple push the Powerbooks to 1 ghz and move the iBooks to the G4, at 800 mhz for the top end.

4. Yes, the G4 would give it a boost but I don't think you can say that the new iBooks are somehow crippled and won't run 10.2 properly. The performance gains of the new architecture combined with the optimization of 10.2 should make the new iBook more than adequate for running OS X.

aarond12
May 20, 2002, 10:16 PM
The current iBook motherboard only supports speeds up to 700MHz. I don't believe this is an issue of having difficulty getting G3s that will run faster than 700MHz. Yes, the heat might still be an issue, but I heard tell that IBM is using the .13 micron process for some of their faster G3s, which would (ideally) reduce heat.

-Aaron-

madamimadam
May 20, 2002, 10:38 PM
Really, to back up a lot of what someone was saying (sorry, I can not be bothered looking at who you are) it makes sense that Apple will only have 2 processors out at a time. Also, Apple would not release a rack mount server that has a slower processor than their new machines at NY, especially since the rack mounts won't be shipping 'til around that time anyway.
It is obvious that NY = G4 with DAMN cool upgrades. I know there will be lots of whining about no G5s but the fact of the matter is that this G4 is EVERYTHING we need. I know I have no use for a 64-bit chip but I do for DDR, 66MHz PCI and ATA100.

How does this relate, well, CRT iMacs and iBooks have to stay at G3 for now until the G5 is released, probably at SF but I don't care to speculate. Then the PowerMacs and Xserves are going up to G5, then the CRT iMacs and iBooks will go to "slow" G4 while the LCD iMac and eMac will be "mid" G4 and the Powerbook will become "fast" G4.

Oh, and by the way, this may only be a 100MHz boost on the clock but these new iBooks are pretty mean for a consumer laptop.

Backtothemac
May 20, 2002, 10:46 PM
Originally posted by os4
I have been running 10.2 on a 500 Mhz iBook and I have to totally disagree with whoever claimed that 10.2 screams on a G3. I get the redesigned blue beach ball all the time. In fact, the Finder crashes frequently, and there don't appear very many optimizations in place yet. Let's hope that is what the next 8 weeks before MWNY will bring. I do admit that many of the new features (e.g., search and spring-loaded folders) are awesome. I can't wait to have the final release.

Couple of questions. 1st) How much memory do you have in your iBook. 2nd) Do you have 10.2 on its own partition. 3rd) Remember there is a huge performance difference in 66 to 100 MHZ bus.

I am just saying what I know. Believe me QE is being used by the card. The iBook has better fps than my iMac with 2 times the video memory!

dantec
May 21, 2002, 06:22 AM
This proves that QE will NOT run on iBooks (taken from www.apple.com/macosx/newversion/).

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


So am I blind or do you see ATI Rage 128??? I agree with Indigo.

You said your iBook gets lots more FPS when it plays Quake... That has nothing to do with QE. 10.2. probably has another 25% OpenGL increase in performance...

The G4 is probably not present in a iBook because of the difference with a Powerbook.

About the CRT iMac, I think that will go the way of the cube at MWNY. Maybe we will see a new lowend iMac...

dantec
May 21, 2002, 06:26 AM
Just a reminder, Quartz Extreme is for 2D graphics. Quake uses 3D... OpenGL graphics. Not the same thing...

Just like in Mac OS 9, Quickdraw (2D) & OpenGL (3D).

os4
May 21, 2002, 06:32 AM
Originally posted by Backtothemac


Couple of questions. 1st) How much memory do you have in your iBook. 2nd) Do you have 10.2 on its own partition. 3rd) Remember there is a huge performance difference in 66 to 100 MHZ bus.

I am just saying what I know. Believe me QE is being used by the card. The iBook has better fps than my iMac with 2 times the video memory!


Good point, Backtothemac. I only have 384Mb RAM; so I did not max it out. 10.2 was the only thing on my 10Gig drive. I don't think the the partition or the size of the partition was an issue. But I do agree with the bus difference. I kicked myself (as everyone does) for buying my iBook six weeks before the upgrades came out in the fall with the 100Mhzbus.

blakespot
May 21, 2002, 07:55 AM
Originally posted by dantec
Just a reminder, Quartz Extreme is for 2D graphics. Quake uses 3D... OpenGL graphics. Not the same thing...

Just like in Mac OS 9, Quickdraw (2D) & OpenGL (3D).
Indeed nothing truly 3D is happening in Quartz Extreme...but it is using OpenGL. Presumably each window becomes a texture (mapped to an apparently 2D plane) and is moved about along that plane. It is not part of QE, but I imagine that you're just one OpenGL call away from being able to rotate, say, a terminal window about an axis.


blakespot

jamesbhai
May 21, 2002, 08:28 AM
I bought the new iBook last night and it is really, really fast. It is faster than my roommate's G4-500 TiBook with similar configurations. I have a bit more memory (384-256), but even so, if that is what it takes to have great performance, then this machine will be a keeper, even on X, for a few years to come.

My problem with X was that it was slow on previous G3s (I am running a Pismo 400) just for navigating and doing simple Finder functions that the targeted audience would notice. They won't notice if if takes a bit longer to render something in Photoshop. They need a machine that will run the Finder, Exploder, Office, iTunes and such without appearing to slow down for no apparent reason. The new iBook accomplishes this with extra room leftover.

I think there is a difference between 'optimum' and 'required.' The new iBooks are speedy under 10.1.4, will be even quicker under 10.2 and whatever Quartz Xtreme that it does take advantage of will provide for the speediest iBook performance to date and will be a great pickup for anyone short of people whose needs were already suited for Powerbooks.

When your required apps. all open in under 5 seconds and the Finder doesn't lag behind, that's all you need. I strongly doubt most iBook consumers would be able to tell the difference between the new models and a G4-500/600. If they can tell, they are probably better off with the Powerbook anyway.

Backtothemac
May 21, 2002, 08:29 AM
Originally posted by dantec
This proves that QE will NOT run on iBooks (taken from www.apple.com/macosx/newversion/).



So am I blind or do you see ATI Rage 128??? I agree with Indigo.

You said your iBook gets lots more FPS when it plays Quake... That has nothing to do with QE. 10.2. probably has another 25% OpenGL increase in performance...

The G4 is probably not present in a iBook because of the difference with a Powerbook.

About the CRT iMac, I think that will go the way of the cube at MWNY. Maybe we will see a new lowend iMac...

Who said anything about quake? I am talking about iTunes using the stock vis, and with G-Force. Yes, I understand the difference between 2d and 3d. The fact is that with 10.1 if I move a window or scroll through one, or run the mouse over the dock. Proc useage goes to near 100%. With 10.2 it hovers around 25-50% even with the largest window. That is 2D interface rendering. That is QE baby!

nero007
May 21, 2002, 09:40 AM
Originally posted by os4
I do admit that many of the new features (e.g., search and spring-loaded folders) are awesome. I can't wait to have the final release.

What build are you running? Spring loaded folders aren't implemented on mine and I have the WWDC build.

nero007
May 21, 2002, 09:46 AM
I heard that QE wasn't even implemented yet in the current build of Jaguar. Can anyone confirm/ disconfirm this? I'm running a G4 Dual 450 and haven't noticed much of an increase. Then again, I never really had any problems with 10.

Backtothemac
May 21, 2002, 10:01 AM
Originally posted by nero007


What build are you running? Spring loaded folders aren't implemented on mine and I have the WWDC build.

If you have the WWDC it is there. It is under finder prefs. Also, yes QE is there in the WWDC Build.

Hemingray
May 21, 2002, 10:31 AM
quote:
Apple has also so far rejected calls to move the iBook which is its last remaining G3-based product to the G4 processor. Sources have indicated that this is in order to maintain a distinction between its consumer and professional portable lines..

Well, they shot that concept to hell when they released the G4 iMac. So where's the distinction in the pro line? July, I say, July son! :D

dantec
May 21, 2002, 10:35 AM
I wasn't the one talking about Q3. Someone said they got better fps with their iBook with 10.2... Just tried to do some cleaning up there.

Hey... we made it to the front page... hehe...

So the iBooks will work with Quartz Extreme... hum... Apple doesn't seem to suggest so... but anyway... I guess 32 mb is for higher resoltions of the Cinema and 17" Studio Display...

nero007
May 21, 2002, 12:53 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac


If you have the WWDC it is there. It is under finder prefs. Also, yes QE is there in the WWDC Build.

I have the WWDC build. And I see the prefs for spring loaded folders. But they don't work.

I have an earlier build of 10.2 and it also had the same prefs without the spring loaded folders actually working.

Backtothemac
May 21, 2002, 12:55 PM
Originally posted by nero007


I have the WWDC build. And I see the prefs for spring loaded folders. But they don't work.

I have an earlier build of 10.2 and it also had the same prefs without the spring loaded folders actually working.

That is crazy. My build has the spring loaded folders, and iChat, but no Sherlock 3. Isn't that weird. I would make sure that you have admin privs, or re install it. It whould be there.

os4
May 21, 2002, 02:51 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac


If you have the WWDC it is there. It is under finder prefs. Also, yes QE is there in the WWDC Build.


Backtothemac, have you had many issues with applications running properly in 10.2? I found that many apps (e.g., NUTDC and several Omnigroup apps) failed to launch and/or run properly.

Backtothemac
May 21, 2002, 02:57 PM
Originally posted by os4



Backtothemac, have you had many issues with applications running properly in 10.2? I found that many apps (e.g., NUTDC and several Omnigroup apps) failed to launch and/or run properly.

Nothing like that. I had a couple of apps minimized that would not come back up out of the dock. Had to force quit them. All in all it is a great build, and needs just some tweaks to get it right.

os4
May 21, 2002, 03:08 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac


Nothing like that. I had a couple of apps minimized that would not come back up out of the dock. Had to force quit them. All in all it is a great build, and needs just some tweaks to get it right.

Thanks. I may just have had a bad install. I wiped 10.2 off my drive b/c of a few issues. But, after several of your comments, I wonder whether my problems fall under 'user error'.

Best.

TypeR389
May 21, 2002, 03:18 PM
Any idea on how slow VPC would run on this new ibook if I maked the RAM out? I am looking to get a new laptop, and while I would love the TiBook, I really can't afford it, and I still do a little PC development on my laptop, so I would have to run VPC on it. IS this even reasonable, or do I have to sell a kidney and just get the TiBook? I am also really liking the bulletproof design of the iBook, I take care of my computers, but inevitably it is going to get bounced around a little...

Backtothemac
May 21, 2002, 03:36 PM
Originally posted by TypeR389
Any idea on how slow VPC would run on this new ibook if I maked the RAM out? I am looking to get a new laptop, and while I would love the TiBook, I really can't afford it, and I still do a little PC development on my laptop, so I would have to run VPC on it. IS this even reasonable, or do I have to sell a kidney and just get the TiBook? I am also really liking the bulletproof design of the iBook, I take care of my computers, but inevitably it is going to get bounced around a little...

I am an Network Admin where I work, and the only on with a Mac. I run VPC with win 95, 98, ME, 2000, and XP. All rock under X with 5.0.2 VPC, except XP. It is a friggen pig. Now, 2000 is as fast as a 400MHZ PII under VPC. So, yes, it is more than useable.

Get the iBook, you will love it. Oh, and my iBook is a 600, with 256K L2 cache, and 384 of ram, you yes, max your ram, and you will have no problems.

reflex
May 21, 2002, 03:42 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac

I am an Network Admin where I work, and the only on with a Mac. I run VPC with win 95, 98, ME, 2000, and XP. All rock under X with 5.0.2 VPC, except XP. It is a friggen pig. Now, 2000 is as fast as a 400MHZ PII under VPC. So, yes, it is more than useable.


That's good to hear. I'm also going to get an iBook soon and plan to run VPC on it. Since my current laptop is a PII 366MHz, it might actually feel like an update for Windows 2000 as well :)

TypeR389
May 21, 2002, 03:43 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac


I am an Network Admin where I work, and the only on with a Mac. I run VPC with win 95, 98, ME, 2000, and XP. All rock under X with 5.0.2 VPC, except XP. It is a friggen pig. Now, 2000 is as fast as a 400MHZ PII under VPC. So, yes, it is more than useable.

Get the iBook, you will love it. Oh, and my iBook is a 600, with 256K L2 cache, and 384 of ram, you yes, max your ram, and you will have no problems.

Thanks, if you are getting something in the PII 400 range on your 600, that is more than enough to run the occasional visual studio session I can forsee. Other than that, I can't think of a reason why I would need a PC! woo hoo!

dantec
May 22, 2002, 02:08 PM
If your getting 400mhz on OS 10, then you'll be getting 700mhz in OS 9. Frankly in OS 10 vs. OS 9 for VPC OS 9 makes it feel like a 1ghz PC on my Mac! Just don't turn the resolution too high (1204x1024 for example).

madamimadam
May 22, 2002, 07:46 PM
Originally posted by dantec
If your getting 400mhz on OS 10, then you'll be getting 700mhz in OS 9. Frankly in OS 10 vs. OS 9 for VPC OS 9 makes it feel like a 1ghz PC on my Mac! Just don't turn the resolution too high (1204x1024 for example).

I debate that heavily, ever since 10.1.4 and the 5.0.2 update the difference between 9 and X has been pretty hard to notice

applebesmart
May 22, 2002, 10:09 PM
Just ordered a 700mhz 12inch ibook...will load 640mb of ram on it. Can't wait to see how this bad boy performs. This is my first Apple purchase since my Power Computing Tower 200mhz. I have a 1ghz dell, but don't love it as much as my old Power.

I'll let all you guys know how my Ibook works.
If all goes well with the Ibook, I will be looking to get a new power mac when the new ddr bad boys come out.
Talk to you guys soon.


-----------------------------
Technology has made my life comlicated because now I have no excuses.

jefhatfield
May 27, 2002, 03:10 AM
Originally posted by arn
Per a MacSurfer.com (http://www.macsurfer.com) link, MacUser.co.uk (http://www.macuser.co.uk/SpyDa/php3/openframe.php3?page=/newnews/newsarticle.php3?id=2013) posted a report on the new iBook. From their sources, it appears G3's seem to be throttled at 700mhz presently:

However, Apple has been unable to procure G3 chips running at faster than 700MHz despite the announcement of a 1GHz version from IBM last year, this product is yet to ship. Apple has also so far rejected calls to move the iBook which is its last remaining G3-based product to the G4 processor. Sources have indicated that this is in order to maintain a distinction between its consumer and professional portable lines...

They also mention that the iBook may need a redesign to incorporate a G4... but appears to be speculation on their part.

hey...i can't find that story...oh well

"they have to keep a distinction?"...that does not sound right...if they can get a g4 in the ibook, that thing will sell like hotcakes

the tibook has that amazing titanium shell and huge screen and all those connectivity options, so people looking for that type of intense technology won't be looking ibook anyway

for my purposes, ibook is plenty powerful enough and with half a gig of ram and with a g4 in the future, any home user would be quite happy

someone looking for more will buy the tibook, no matter how fast a g4 ibook gets...that 15+ inch screen on the tibook is totally unbeatable for a pro who has the money for one

...though i do know non graphics pros who use the tibook because they simply "wanted one" and that is really a good a reason as any to own one...i just can't currently justify it with my income and bills

if they put g5 in tibook or make it even thinner and lighter, i will take out a business loan...he he

OSeXy!
May 27, 2002, 05:14 AM
I suspect there ARE 1GHz G3 PPC 750FX chips (as IBM has said), but that the yields are still too low to make them cost effective to use in the iBook. And because Apple doesn't use the G3 in anything else, cost is everything. I wonder if we might see an iBook SE 1GHz at MWNY...

jefhatfield
May 27, 2002, 11:29 AM
Originally posted by OSeXy!
I suspect there ARE 1GHz G3 PPC 750FX chips (as IBM has said), but that the yields are still too low to make them cost effective to use in the iBook. And because Apple doesn't use the G3 in anything else, cost is everything. I wonder if we might see an iBook SE 1GHz at MWNY...

that would be great:D

Backtothemac
May 27, 2002, 11:34 AM
Originally posted by applebesmart
Just ordered a 700mhz 12inch ibook...will load 640mb of ram on it. Can't wait to see how this bad boy performs. This is my first Apple purchase since my Power Computing Tower 200mhz. I have a 1ghz dell, but don't love it as much as my old Power.

I'll let all you guys know how my Ibook works.
If all goes well with the Ibook, I will be looking to get a new power mac when the new ddr bad boys come out.
Talk to you guys soon.


-----------------------------
Technology has made my life comlicated because now I have no excuses.

Hey congrats!!! When you get it start a thread and let us know how it performs. I can't wait to see the difference that the extra 256k of cache makes. Let us know!

britboy
May 27, 2002, 12:34 PM
Originally posted by OSeXy!
I suspect there ARE 1GHz G3 PPC 750FX chips (as IBM has said), but that the yields are still too low to make them cost effective to use in the iBook. And because Apple doesn't use the G3 in anything else, cost is everything. I wonder if we might see an iBook SE 1GHz at MWNY...

That would be really great to see, but i very much doubt it. The might have the iBook running at, or close to, the speed of the powerbook, but not higher. Unless apple are going to announce three upgrades at a single macworld... (and when was the last time they did that?)

Backtothemac
May 27, 2002, 12:44 PM
Originally posted by OSeXy!
I suspect there ARE 1GHz G3 PPC 750FX chips (as IBM has said), but that the yields are still too low to make them cost effective to use in the iBook. And because Apple doesn't use the G3 in anything else, cost is everything. I wonder if we might see an iBook SE 1GHz at MWNY...

Na, not going to happen. Here is why, TiBooks just revised. The TiBooks will not play second fiddle to any iBook. It won't happen until SF. So, the iBooks that are there are there for about 6 months, and the same for the Ti's.

OSeXy!
May 27, 2002, 12:48 PM
Originally posted by britboy


That would be really great to see, but i very much doubt it. The might have the iBook running at, or close to, the speed of the powerbook, but not higher. Unless apple are going to announce three upgrades at a single macworld... (and when was the last time they did that?)
I agree. Just wishful thinking on my part. The point is that I think Apple COULD do it, at a cost. But I don't think they'll crowd the TiBook's marketspace, either...

jefhatfield
May 27, 2002, 08:39 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac


Na, not going to happen. Here is why, TiBooks just revised. The TiBooks will not play second fiddle to any iBook. It won't happen until SF. So, the iBooks that are there are there for about 6 months, and the same for the Ti's.

so is the tibook 667 mhz playing second fiddle to the ibook 700? ;-)

i don't care if apple has a 900/1000 mhz g3 ibook and 667/800 g4 tibook because the latter series has the titanium and thin body, more ports, altivec, and better lcd screen with that unbelievable 15.2" inch view

sony now has a 16" inch lcd laptop but the overall machine is still deficient to any tibook

now if every port and option, plus titanium exterior was put on the ibook and the ibook had a g4, then the tibook would have a challenge to its high end territory

the only time i felt that a consumer machine encroached on the pro line was when the cube, a pro-sumer machine came out, and it was almost as cool as the g4 tower as far as capability

with the unit being small and quiet and having more than adequate graphics, a am sure some professional mac users found this machine pro level enough for their commerce oriented uses...and bought the cube when they were about to buy a g4...my friend got a g4, then dual 500, then a cube, and prefers the cube of the three

too bad the cube went out of commission:(

britboy
May 28, 2002, 07:12 AM
Originally posted by jefhatfield


so is the tibook 667 mhz playing second fiddle to the ibook 700? ;-)

i don't care if apple has a 900/1000 mhz g3 ibook and 667/800 g4 tibook because the latter series has the titanium and thin body, more ports, altivec, and better lcd screen with that unbelievable 15.2" inch view



That's comparing the top-line iBook to the bottom-line Tibook. Not a fair comparison.

You may not care if the ibook runs at a faster clock speed than the powerbook, but i'm sure many other 'less knowledgable' people will, very much so. The powerbook needs to run at higher speeds than the ibook, if only for marketing purposes.

Backtothemac
May 28, 2002, 08:14 AM
Originally posted by britboy



That's comparing the top-line iBook to the bottom-line Tibook. Not a fair comparison.

You may not care if the ibook runs at a faster clock speed than the powerbook, but i'm sure many other 'less knowledgable' people will, very much so. The powerbook needs to run at higher speeds than the ibook, if only for marketing purposes.

Yep. If the average person who walked into CompUSA understood Apples Processors, and knew the Mac front and back they could understand the difference between a 1 GHZ G3 and an 800 MHZ G4. That is just not the case though. They have been brainwashed by Intel that MHZ is the God of computing. We all know that is not true, but they don't. And if they saw a 1 GHZ machine for 1499, and an 800 MHZ machine for 3000. They would flip. It would look bad for Apple in the grand scheme of things.

Mr. Anderson
May 28, 2002, 08:27 AM
Originally posted by Backtothemac

They have been brainwashed by Intel that MHZ is the God of computing. We all know that is not true, but they don't. And if they saw a 1 GHZ machine for 1499, and an 800 MHZ machine for 3000. They would flip. It would look bad for Apple in the grand scheme of things.

I'd agree with that. Not only would it not be guaranteed that the store employees could even describe what the difference is, imagine trying to order one online or out of a catalog. You'd cause more confusion and lose a sale. They'll have to keep the iBook slower than the TiPB for now.

Backtothemac
May 28, 2002, 08:30 AM
Originally posted by dukestreet


I'd agree with that. Not only would it not be guaranteed that the store employees could even describe what the difference is, imagine trying to order one online or out of a catalog. You'd cause more confusion and lose a sale. They'll have to keep the iBook slower than the TiPB for now.

You know. Hopefully, by the end of next year, they won't have a problem seperating the pro from the consumer lines. Hopefully the Pro's will be way out in front, and people will lust for the pros that cannot afford them.

britboy
May 28, 2002, 09:48 AM
Originally posted by Backtothemac


You know. Hopefully, by the end of next year, they won't have a problem seperating the pro from the consumer lines. Hopefully the Pro's will be way out in front, and people will lust for the pros that cannot afford them.


I assume you're referring to the (hopeful) release of the G5.

If the G5 *were* to be released, you'd immediately have the distinction between pro and consumer models again. Having the G4 in consumer and pro computers cannot be good for apple.

Backtothemac
May 28, 2002, 10:23 AM
Originally posted by britboy



I assume you're referring to the (hopeful) release of the G5.

If the G5 *were* to be released, you'd immediately have the distinction between pro and consumer models again. Having the G4 in consumer and pro computers cannot be good for apple.

Agreed. We will see a G5 next year, and it will again seperate the pro/consumer lines. I just hope it is 1st quarter 2003.