1.5 vs 1.67 PBs - maccentral suggests little difference

[sbb155]

Did anyone see the benchamrks just posted at Maccentral?
Very little differences between 1.5 and 1.67 Ghz. - a few seconds at best in most cases.
I guess it is different than when the 12" was 1 ghz and the 17 " was 1.33 (a 33% difference), compared to now.

Doesn't this mean that really the best value is the 1.5 ghz 15" PB or even the 12" (if yoiu don't want an ibook that is)....

I guess also the uniformity of the 5400 HD makes a difference....

Comments anyone? Esepcially for us PB potential buyers...

I guess the REAL advance will be dual core G4 to get improved performance... Hell, it seems that a dual MDD PM is better than a single 1.6 G5!!

[ZildjianKX]

Did anyone see the benchamrks just posted at Maccentral?
Very little differences between 1.5 and 1.67 Ghz. - a few seconds at best in most cases.
I guess it is different than when the 12" was 1 ghz and the 17 " was 1.33 (a 33% difference), compared to now.

Doesn't this mean that really the best value is the 1.5 ghz 15" PB or even the 12" (if yoiu don't want an ibook that is)....

I guess also the uniformity of the 5400 HD makes a difference....

Comments anyone? Esepcially for us PB potential buyers...

I guess the REAL advance will be dual core G4 to get improved performance... Hell, it seems that a dual MDD PM is better than a single 1.6 G5!!

Really shows how lackluster of an update this really was...

[nate13]

personally i think they should be concentrating on dual core now... the single g4 is starting to show its age... but even still there should be a bigger gap

[SilentPanda]

I just got me 12" Powerbook G4 1.5 and I love it... previously had (well I still have it) an iBook G4 800... but they gotta stay connected for a while as the Powerbook is cleaning out the iBook HD with the 8-way random write format... not really sure how long that's gonna take but it's been running for a few hours right now and not showing a ton of progress...

[Counterfit]

I think the main reason for going for the 1.67GHz would be for the option of 128MB on the video card (and Dual-link DVI :D) and the standard superdrive. Add some stuff to the 1.5GHz, and it's only $50 or so more for the 1.67GHz (or if you add the 128MB and drop the SuperDrive, it's about the same difference). But 170MHz now shouldn't be expected to give much of a difference in anything anyway. A few years ago though, it was a bigger difference ;)

[weezer160]

I think the main reason for going for the 1.67GHz would be for the option of 128MB on the video card (and Dual-link DVI :D) and the standard superdrive. Add some stuff to the 1.5GHz, and it's only $50 or so more for the 1.67GHz (or if you add the 128MB and drop the SuperDrive, it's about the same difference). But 170MHz now shouldn't be expected to give much of a difference in anything anyway. A few years ago though, it was a bigger difference ;)

If anything, I think the value of having 128 MB VRAM is so that when you have two displays connected, both displays may have 64MB VRAM. Right now, on my PB, two displays means I have 32 MB per/display, which sucks, so I keep the 20" the primary display when I can.

[cemil]

This is exactly why the G4 in its current incarnation sucks so badly. all Apple & Freescale are doing right now is increasing the clock multiplier. Because FSB speeds aren't going up, real performance won't go up very much. In extremely CPU bound applications with a tight codebase that can fit into the on-chip cache, then you'll see speed-ups equivalent to the MHz increase. On the other hand, anything intensively using the FSB won't see much (if any) increase.

I personally couldn't care less about a G5 in a powerbook, but I >DO< care about a FSB increase. That is the real reason that a 1.6 G5 feels so much snappier than a 1.67 G4 (even though the G4 outperforms the G5)!

So much for updates.

(cranky)

[Some_Big_Spoon]

The chip is maxed out kids. We're deep into overclocking territory and there's no speed gains to be made with the bus stuck at 167 and Apple's insistance on killing the L3 cache on the G4. This revision is a waste unles you're new to the game.

[virividox]

hmm kinda disappointing but hey still better than my current machine hehe

[Lacero]

I think Apple realized the speed bumps are minimal so they added all the extra stuff like more RAM, SMS, etc and a price cut to make the PBs more attractive. Still, it is a better deal now than the previous gen PBs.

[jsw]

Apple can't win. They provide a nice update at a lower price and get knocked because it's not much faster. If they provided a big speed boost, they'd get knocked because it'd be a rev. A. :rolleyes:

I for one think these are really nice.

[gekko513]

So what did you expect, an 11% increase in CPU clock speed giving a performance increase of 20% or something?

[billystlyes]

Other than a Dual Core G4 it looks like the G4 is maxed out. The best thing about the Powerbook update was scrolling touchpad and disk lock.

[Mechcozmo]

In about 3 years I might buy a 12" Rev. D PowerBook..... just due to the price of them at that point.

Might also pick up a cheap G3 PowerBook and stuff it with dual batteries for a long-lasting note taking machine kinda thing.

But now, I love my 12" Rev. C PowerBook. :D:D:D:D

[Mechcozmo]

not really sure how long that's gonna take but it's been running for a few hours right now and not showing a ton of progress...

It will take a long time. Might stretch into a couple of days depending on the hard drive size. Writing 0's to an 8GB hard drive took me 20 minutes. So... 160 minutes for an 8 way write, and that means it takes 20 minutes per gigabyte. This was on a 5200 or a 4200 rpm drive, I forget which. Looking at 800 minutes if its a 40 GB drive.

[dongmin]

Did anyone see the benchamrks just posted at Maccentral?
Very little differences between 1.5 and 1.67 Ghz. - a few seconds at best in most cases.
I guess it is different than when the 12" was 1 ghz and the 17 " was 1.33 (a 33% difference), compared to now.

Doesn't this mean that really the best value is the 1.5 ghz 15" PB or even the 12" (if yoiu don't want an ibook that is)....

I guess also the uniformity of the 5400 HD makes a difference....

Comments anyone? Esepcially for us PB potential buyers...

I guess the REAL advance will be dual core G4 to get improved performance... Hell, it seems that a dual MDD PM is better than a single 1.6 G5!!

Did you guys bother doing the math? In most tests, the 1.67 ghz is about 10% faster than the 1.50 ghz version. That's in line with the 11% advantage in clock speed. What's the big surprise or disappointment???

I'd also be skeptical of these tests. There's no way in hell that the 12-inch 1.5 ghz PB is THAT much faster than the 15-inch 1.5 ghz PB. And why didn't they run multiple tests and average out the times? Sloppy sloppy joe.

[Mitthrawnuruodo]

Nothing in those tests that make me run to the nearest Apple retailer... I probably gonna replace my iBook (G4@800) this year (sometime after Tiger is released), and will get either a 12" iBook or 12" PowerBook. At the moment it seems like it's gonna be a new iBook, but some MAJOR upgrades of the PB could change my mind, like dual core or - yes I know it's a bit worn out - G5/Cell...

[1984]

So what did you expect, an 11% increase in CPU clock speed giving a performance increase of 20% or something?

It looks like it's more like a 9% increase in performance and that's with more ram and a faster 5400rpm drive too. Yikes. It really goes to show how bad the current G4 processor is. As I recall the 7447B is actually slower (at the same speeds) than the 7447 with the L2 cache disabled. The larger L2 chache is the only thing that makes it faster. Terrible. Shameful. Disgraceful. Awful. Quite possibly the worst upgrade ever.

[therevolution]

Terrible. Shameful. Disgraceful. Awful. Quite possibly the worst upgrade ever.
For crying out loud. Must it be said again?

Yes, the G4 is reaching the end. That's why they added other features and dropped the price! There's more to upgrade than just the CPU, you know.

[aussie_geek]

Those benchmarks don't surprise me. The only good thing between the 1.5's and the new ones is the new price. If anyone is in the market for a PowerBook, have a look around for a 1.5Ghz model with the faster HD, and you will get more of a bargain!!

aussie_geek

[D*I*S_Frontman]

Jeez, people--get a grip.

It was a speedbump. A small one. It signals the nearing of the end for the Powerbook G4 as we know it--the next big rev. will be any one of the technologies we have been drooling over and praying for over the last several months (dual core G4s w/faster bus speeds, G5's, Cells, etc.). It is hard to tell which, as Apple probably has all of them in development in one fashion or the other and is not tipping its hand.

Still, the increase of standard RAM, SMS, faster drives, AE/BT, backlighting updates and the 128MB graphics card are all welcome, as is the overall reduction in price. While they are not the "bleeding edge" tech we might be hoping for, they are a good value.

I've said it before, but it bears repeating: the final version of a product is often its best, most reliable rendition. It seems to me that these are the last of the single-core G4 AlBooks. The next bid release will issue a new era, complete with new design issues, bugs, real-world failings, etc. I predict that these current AlBooks will be considered very durable and desirable, even when the new systems come out.

I bought a closeout Pismo when the TiBooks first came out. My Pismo was built like a tank, more expandable, showed scuffing/scratching less, and lasted me three years of constant use as my only CPU. It had a G3 chip instead of a G4, but it still ran 10.3 like a champ. No broken hinges, peeling paint, or any other such problems. You don't find nearly as many lovers of 1st generation (400/500mhz) TiBooks as you do Pismo-philes.

BTW, I am putting my money where my mouth is. I'll be buying a 17" Powerbook within the next 30-60 days. I anticipate that it will be "obsolete" within a few months after that when the "next big thing" comes out. But for my purposes, it will be more than fast enough, durable enough, and expandable enough to meet my needs for at least another 3-5 years, all without the rev A issues the "bleeding edgers" will be facing.

A slightly slower processor/mobo in a working G4 machine trumps a busted down 1st generation G5 every time.

[berner]

Apple is at the mercy of the chip manufacturers here. I have so been hoping for the 7448 freescale chip to be ready, i'm sure that is why they held out for so long with this last update. Alas, it obviously didn't meet the deadline. so instead, here is a suckass lite overclock of an already straining chip with some fancy extras to make you forget that this upgrade was possible 9 months ago. so if freescale hasn't got the 7448 ready now, that doesn't look great for the dualcore g4's in the near future either. Damn i wish they could get ahead of the curve here! Same same for the G5 in the powermacs, its all up to IBM, if antares isn't ready soon, expect a price drop and some other lame "features" in a minor powermac upgrade.
it sucks to have some one else set the timelines, when all the hardware is around in good quantities apple happily schedules speedbumps every 6 months (my observation of the ibook line, which uses the cpus that the PB's no longer need).

Kevin in Canada

[gekko513]

It looks like it's more like a 9% increase in performance and that's with more ram and a faster 5400rpm drive too. Yikes. It really goes to show how bad the current G4 processor is. As I recall the 7447B is actually slower (at the same speeds) than the 7447 with the L2 cache disabled. The larger L2 chache is the only thing that makes it faster. Terrible. Shameful. Disgraceful. Awful. Quite possibly the worst upgrade ever.

I'll repeat it again with some more clarification then. So what did you expect, an 11% increase in CPU clock speed giving a performance increase of 20% or something, for CPU bound benchmarks? :rolleyes:

[James L]

We're deep into overclocking territory...

Link?

[Flynnstone]

Because FSB speeds aren't going up, real performance won't go up very much.(cranky)

Hit the nail on the head.

We are all "rumoring" about a G5 PowerBook. It seems logical.
IBM, Toshiba ... announced the "cell" processor. They are talking about that it can scale from a super powerful games station to a cell phone.
Perhaps a PowerBook is in there somewhere?

[panphage]

Link?
How's this?
Designed as pin-compatible replacements for Freescale's MPC7447 products, these new processors have been shown to reach speeds of 1.5 GHz.
"Have been shown to reach" seems pretty tentative and theoretical as far as marketing copy goes...I believe the folks over at Powerlogix have said that the chips aren't rated any higher than 1.4. I'll try to find the info. But still, as has been pointed out, it doesn't matter if the chips run at 1.81gigawatts, if the fsb is still stuck at 167 and the system can't utilize the doubling feature of DDR ram (both true of the 7xxx series chips) then we'll not see great performance increases.

[sbb155]

I am a Mac newbie, but it seems like the lack of competition to produce processors may be affecting things... On the PC side, AMD and intel are in constant competition to make the latest and greatest processors.... This competition may get products to the market faster and innovation happens sooner, despite the small market share of AMD... I don't know, I know that there is a lot of PC hostility here, but let's face it, the competition to produce components DOES drive down costs and it forces innovation....

Anyway, I am still torn on whether or not to get a new PB... the portability is great, but when a iMac G5 is cheaper in many cases, I wonder if I should just wait for a more robust upgrade.

Apple's products seem wonderful, especially software, but these new benchmarks are disappointing, unless upgrades happen every few months instead of 1x-2x a year. If upgrades happen more frequently, then the incremental increase is not nearly as disappointing.

[cemil]

Yes, an 11% increase in clock speed should result in a 9-10% increase in CPU-bound applications, but here's the point: very few benchmarks reflect real-world performance.

In the real world, very few applications are really that CPU-bound (except maybe encoding). Also, even when encoding, an increase in FSB would make HUGE differences due to increased ram speeds.

I'm sorry, but this update was lame. lets see: 512 MB of RAM? Should have been standard on POWERbooks years ago. A gig? that would have been an upgrade.

BT 2.0? What devices support BT 2.0, pray tell?

Shock absorber on the HD? For the ONCE that you drop your computer. Goody, the HD doesn't lose data, but your LAPPIE is screwed.

Yes, all of these things are good individually, but that doesn't change the fact that this upgrade doesn't help the pbook line very much. Consider the RIDICULOUS price gap between the ibooks and the pbooks. A SIGNIFICANTLY larger price drop would have been nice, considering Apple at this point is getting the hardware for chump change, since its ANCIENT.

I will not be buying a new powerbook until FSB speeds are up to snuff. I couldn't care less if its a G4, G5, or G18. Until we hit REAL FSB speeds which can feed the processor, I won't buy.

(still cranky)

[mcgarry]

... [snip]

Yes, all of these things are good individually, but that doesn't change the fact that this upgrade doesn't help the pbook line very much. Consider the RIDICULOUS price gap between the ibooks and the pbooks. ...(still cranky)

Sorry, I don't get this part. If you aren't happy with where the PBooks are, but the iBooks aren't even quite up to where the last rev. PBs were, how exactly is the gap "RIDICULOUS"? As is discussed numerous times per day, the 12" to 12" comparison is very competitive, with a real performance/features edge along with the substantial (but I would hardly say "RIDICULOUS") price increase for the PB, and the 15" and 17" offer speeds and features just not found in the iBook series. Sure, there's a premium to pay to have the best that Apple offers in a laptop, but is that crazy, or ridiculous?

I think you might be unfairly comparing the laptops to the desktops implicitly ... don't get me wrong, I agree with your overall point about Apple G4 laptop stagnation ... but within Mac laptop-land, I think comparisons should be made in the proper context. Next to an iMac/PowerMac the PowerBook looks weak, but next to the iBooks, of course the PBs are better by the specs, but I think they can hold their own on price too, of course depending on the consumer's wants/needs/budget. The PBs offer more speed and more capabilities for more money, but I'm not sure how you can properly call it a "RIDICULOUS" amount ... was there a specific comparison you had in mind, or a specific dollar amount difference you consider more than it should be in any specific case?

EDIT: to clarify, I don't think it's necessarily unfair to compare the PBs to the desktops, and in that regard, the PBs (and iBs) represent a premium for portability and little else (although that's very typical); I was specifically addressing your comparison to the iBooks

[combatcolin]

Funny.

The more people read about G5 or Dual G4 the more they think the technology is ready and waiting for them the next time they visit their local Apple store.

The downside of Internet sites such as Macrumors is that people have such high expectations because some company has released details of a technology 12-18 months from a retail release.

[El Duderino]

These performance "gains" are hardly anything, they are nothing that make it worthwhile to buy unless there is an absolute NEED. Personally I am glad I'm a year behind in my major of graphic design at college, it means I can wait a whole year a half to make my purchase. Hopefully by then there will be an update that can compete with its predosesor.

Bigger faster HD arent a big deal, besides its cheaper to get one seperate and just install it yourself, in which case the choice of 7200 RPM or even 10000 RPM is on the table, and its still $100 to upgrade the video card, I remember when it first came out it was only a $50 upgrade.

Sorry Jobs but Im not impressed and I doubt I will be until the current G4 is scrapped and we get a whole new chip. I dont care if its a G5, I really dont, I just something I can get excited about. Im jaded

[cemil]

Sorry, I don't get this part. If you aren't happy with where the PBooks are, but the iBooks aren't even quite up to where the last rev. PBs were, how exactly is the gap "RIDICULOUS"? As is discussed numerous times per day, the 12" to 12" comparison is very competitive, with a real performance/features edge along with the substantial (but I would hardly say "RIDICULOUS") price increase for the PB, and the 15" and 17" offer speeds and features just not found in the iBook series. Sure, there's a premium to pay to have the best that Apple offers in a laptop, but is that crazy, or ridiculous?

I think you might be unfairly comparing the laptops to the desktops ... don't get me wrong, I agree with your overall point about Apple G4 laptop stagnation ... but within Mac laptop-land, I think comparisons should be made in the proper context. Next to an iMac/PowerMac the PowerBook looks weak, but next to the iBooks, of course the PBs are better by the specs, but I think they can hold their own on price too, of course depending on the consumer's wants/needs/budget. The PBs offer more speed and more capabilities for more money, but I'm not sure how you can properly call it a "RIDICULOUS" amount ... was there a specific comparison you had in mind, or a specific dollar amount difference you consider more than it should be in any specific case?

Here's the thing. Yes, the 15 and 17" pbooks offer features above and beyond an ibook - but are those features really worth the difference? Certainly not in price. I'm sure that the CPU speed itself makes no difference to the price whatsoever(as far as apple is concerned). Lets not forget that the current incarnation of the G4 is an old processor, so we're not talking cutting-edge stuff here. The 1.67 is just an overclocked processor, so no advancements have been made, just more reliable fabs. Therefore, what exactly is the $500 difference between the ibook 12" and the pbook 12"?

Lets see:

Same resolution screen
slightly faster CPU
More RAM
Slightly better (faster, bigger) HD
Slightly better video card
BT
Yes, a few other small knick knacks.

Now, explain where the $500 difference is, except in keeping an artificial price difference to make it seem to the average consumer that the powerbook is better because it is more expensive.

Yes, the 15" offers features that the ibook doesn't. It is also $700 more than an ibook 14". Yes the Powerbook looks better, yes its a >bit< faster but is that worth $700?

I understand that Apple couldn't put better CPUs in these machines if they're not out yet. In that case, max out everything about the PowerBooks.

I would have been satisfied with this upgrade if:

REALLY upgrade the RAM. Lets face it, 512 is the bare minimum, especially in a PowerBook. A gig would have been nice.

Put SERIOUS HDs in there. Either 7200 or 5400 but DEFINITELY with 8 MB cache.

Put SERIOUS video cards in all models. 128 MB video ram standard, 256 on the top end models

That would have made this upgrade really worth it for the last model of the G4 Powerbook. Otherwise, its an incremental upgrade, and my guess is that most people will simply wait for the next real update.

I do agree that this will likely be the most stable powerbook for a while, since its the last rev of a tried-and-true architecture. That's why it should have been made into a very compelling update.

[NEENAHBOY]

I'd just like to take this opportunity to point out that there are people starving in third-world countries who could only DREAM about owning any type of computer, and yet you all are moaning about the "horrible" PB upgrades.

[1984]

For crying out loud. Must it be said again?

Yes, the G4 is reaching the end. That's why they added other features and dropped the price! There's more to upgrade than just the CPU, you know.

Great. So the PowerBooks finally get features that have long been standard on other laptops. Do you know how long the competition has had DVD+RW burners and 5400RPM hard drives? These should have been standard on the previous PowerBooks. Now the competition has dual-layer burning. Always a step behind with the PowerBooks. The price drops were not nearly enough. They are still ovepriced for what they offer.

[therevolution]

Great. So the PowerBooks finally get features that have long been standard on other laptops. Do you know how long the competition has had DVD+RW burners and 5400RPM hard drives? These should have been standard on the previous PowerBooks. Now the competition has dual-layer burning. Always a step behind with the PowerBooks. The price drops were not nearly enough. They are still ovepriced for what they offer.
Then stop whining and buy another laptop.

[mcgarry]

Cemil- I think the $500 number is a bit disingenous. At least equalize the HD and RAM, and add BT, then it's a $300 difference. At the $500 point, you have noticeably reduced functionality. Like I said, that's still a substantial difference, I just don't think it's ridiculous. The $300 buys you (once more for good luck):

- faster processor/FSB
- faster HD
- faster video card
- twice the VRAM
- true clamshell mode and screen spannign w/o hack
- the little stuff: new trackpad, BT2, audio-in, HD drop protection, arguably nicer keyboard
- all in a slightly smaller, lighter case

Now, personally I can see that being $300 well-spent for some people, again depending on needs/wants/budget. What I don't see it as is "ridiculous," but I guess one person's "substantial" can be another's "ridiculous." My main point was that if the PB is so inadequate, what's that make the iBook that doesn't have any of those things? Cheaper, yes, and even more distressingly behind what can be had in a desktop. Its FSB is even slower than the dreaded 167 MHz. I am NOT denying that Apple doesn't do this all on purpose, of course they do, they're the ones setting the prices, I'm just saying that I think it can be fair depending, again, on one's needs/wants/budget. That doesn't apply to you at the moment, fair enough.

As for the 15" and 17", I don't think a direct comparison can really be made in the way you want to. I can't configure an iBook to be close to a 17" PB, except that they both use a G4 and other such basic commonalities. I'm just saying it's all about context. The only thing to say with the larger ones, even moreso than with the 12" is, pay more to get more or less to get less. How much more and less, and what that means, I think means very different things if you compare within the laptop line, where I don't think it looks ridiculous, or when you compare to what the same $ buys in a desktop, where by raw specs it can indeed look ridiculous (thus the portability premium). Now if we move on to looking at these PBs and IBs in a PC laptop context, that's maybe when Apple really might start looking bad .... plenty of threads on that.

[1984]

I'll repeat it again with some more clarification then. So what did you expect, an 11% increase in CPU clock speed giving a performance increase of 20% or something, for CPU bound benchmarks? :rolleyes:

I expect more of an increase when taking into consideration that not only is the CPU faster but it also has a faster hard drive and more memory. If they were to do a proper upgrade the 15" would have 128MB graphics memory and digital in/out across the board. Oh, and for $2000 and you don't even get a freakin Superdrive? Are you kidding me? What year is this? That's just crap. Instead of wasting time, money and resources with this ridiculous upgrade they could have simply dropped the price much more significantly on the previous models and come out with something that's actually worth while when the 7448 G4 or G5 is ready.

[cemil]

McGarry,

While the cost of those upgrades seems good, the thing is - the INCREMENTAL cost of manufacturing to apple is nothing. Apple would probably still make a profit off of PowerBooks at 999.

At least with the iBook you're getting what you pay for: A value computer. With the PowerBook, you're not getting what you pay for: A truly mobile workstation. You're paying a 50% premium (999->1499) for some small upgrades which cost Apple nothing. If they wanted to make the PowerBook appealing, price it starting at 1299. Then those extra features start to be worth it.

Basically, with the exception of BT, the only differences between the iBook and PowerBook lines are component upgrades.

Faster CPU
Faster Video
More Ram
Faster HD

Nothing else really separates the lines. (well, apart from shinyness).

I agree though, we should definitely NOT compare ibook or powerbook to PC lappies, at which point they both look pathetic (and I'm an Apple fan). The next person to tell me that a G4 1.5 is anything CLOSE to a P-M 1.5 gets shot. Honestly.

[1984]

Then stop whining and buy another laptop.

Don't need one enough so I'll wait as long as I can.

Sounds like someone doesn't like it when people disagree with them. You must think your opinion is the only one that matters. That's quite an ego you have going there. God forbid someone doesn't think everything Apple releases is gold. Get a grip. This is the real world and Apple dropped the ball plain and simple. Deal with it.

[BornAgainMac]

"exception of the Compressor MPEG2 encode which was fastest on a 1.5GHz model for unclear reasons."

Cool... My old Powerbook is faster than your new Powerbook. :D

[risc]

Well I just ordered a PowerBook G4 1.67 GHz 15" Super Drive through work using salary sacrifice, I got it at wholesale minus GST so it ended up costing nearly $200 less than the 15" Combo Drive model you wont see me complaining at all, I'm upgrading from an iBook G4 1 GHz (Rev A) this will be a fantastic notebook for me, the best I've ever owned. I've got a Power Mac G5 Dual 1.8 GHz here if I need real processing beef, but for the money I think I scored a fantastic notebook. Like everyone I'd love to see a PowerBook G4 Dual Core, or a G5 but nothing I've read points to them being available anytime soon so I'll enjoy my notebook when it turns up in a couple of weeks, and now my sister can enjoy the old iBook G4 she switched by accident but she loves the hardware/OS.

[CaptainCaveMann]

Whoever said these chips are overclocked is sadly mistaken. A while back a guy on here posted an awesome point on the different g4 chips and it started with this: The question was are the 1.33 the 1.5 the same chip but one is just overclocked. The answer was no. The chips come off the line all making different numbers. Some come out making 1.23 some come out making 1.45 some come out making 1.67. It all varies. These chips are not overclocked.

[mcgarry]

Cemil- I guess I'll agree to disagree. And I'm still not biting on the $500 figure. For $300, I really think those are wise upgrades that most people should prefer if they can afford it. If not, sure, the iBook is a great value, but irrespective of price, just by the specs, it's even more hobbled than the PB-- which is what you were originally complaining about.

Do those upgrades cost Apple $300? Probably not, but do they cost something? yes, 5400rpm HDs are still in fact more expensive than 4200, etc. Apple is not bound to make prices exactly reflective of component costs; it's just not that simple.

Hey, 12" to 12", it's a 20% FSB increase, a 20% MHz increase, 22% HD rpm increase, 200% of VRAM, (just numbers, I know, not directly translatable to performance, but bear with me)-- plus all the extras and still (somehow) a faster video card -- for a 21% price increase. Sounds alright to me.

Once more, I am NOT arguing that this was some super-update and every Apple price is unquestionable, I am arguing that the price discrepancy to the iBooks is not necessarily as ridiculous as it might seem

[CaptainCaveMann]

I'd just like to take this opportunity to point out that there are people starving in third-world countries who could only DREAM about owning any type of computer, and yet you all are moaning about the "horrible" PB upgrades.Thats a great point. I totally agree.

[cemil]

Cemil- I guess I'll agree to disagree.

Once more, I am NOT arguing that this was some super-update and every Apple price is unquestionable, I am arguing that the price discrepancy to the iBooks is not necessarily as ridiculous as it might seem

I have no trouble agreeing to disagree :-) Basically we're looking at it from opposite sides of the same coin.

Now, how about this link:
Two Finger Scrolling (http://www-users.kawo2.rwth-aachen.de/~razzfazz/)

That link will enable the new "two finger scrolling" on older powerbooks. It's just a software feature anyways, not a hardware one.

Just thought everyone might like a little piece of the new pie.

[SiliconAddict]

Really shows how lackluster of an update this really was...

And the previous one and the previous one and.....The original PowerBook was the bomb at the time of its release. Pity Apple or the companies it CHOOSES to provide the chips can't keep up with the rest of the industry. :rolleyes:

But at least everyone can wrap themselves in blanket of an excuse that it runs OS X and has the iApps.

[El Duderino]

I'd just like to take this opportunity to point out that there are people starving in third-world countries who could only DREAM about owning any type of computer, and yet you all are moaning about the "horrible" PB upgrades.

yes and they are in third world contries with no reason to own a computer (what are they going to use it for,soltiare?) and i doubt that they have a starbucks on the corner to provide a WiFi hot spot. on the other hand this is what we have, i have college and college expences which involves me having to buy an apple computer so im going to B!tch and complain till my face turns blue and i get a computer thats worth the amount of money im spending on it.

(ranting concluded)

[jsw]

But at least everyone can wrap themselves in blanket of an excuse that it runs OS X....
That's the whole point. It runs OS X. The only qualm I have with the PBs is that the screen res should be better. Whatever. I'll deal with it. But all those who feel that Wintel laptops offer better value are free to use them instead. That's not me trying to troll. Please - use them if you prefer. Buy one and install Linux if you'd like. Lots of people are very happy with their Dell laptops. I have one through work with a fantastic 1920x1200 screen. I never turn it on. My sole reason for buying a PB will be to run OS X when I'm not at my home office. And they run OS X an OS X apps very nicely. So, for customers like me, the PBs are a fine value, as the alternative is an immensely long power cord.

[rosalindavenue]

It looks like it's more like a 9% increase in performance and that's with more ram and a faster 5400rpm drive too. Yikes. It really goes to show how bad the current G4 processor is. As I recall the 7447B is actually slower (at the same speeds) than the 7447 with the L2 cache disabled. The larger L2 chache is the only thing that makes it faster. Terrible. Shameful. Disgraceful. Awful. Quite possibly the worst upgrade ever.

OH NO! WORST-- UPGRADE-- EVAR!!!

http://img240.exs.cx/img240/7294/comicguy3jc.gif

[jsw]

yes and they are in third world contries with no reason to own a computer (what are they going to use it for,soltiare?) and i doubt that they have a starbucks on the corner to provide a WiFi hot spot. on the other hand this is what we have, i have college and college expences which involves me having to buy an apple computer so im going to B!tch and complain till my face turns blue and i get a computer thats worth the amount of money im spending on it.

(ranting concluded)
If the PBs were not worth the amount of money people are spending, they wouldn't buy them. But they do buy them. So, therefore, they're worth the price. Simple economics.

What is it that the current PBs are failing to offer you? My 1999 Lombard G3 does 90% of what I need, and it's over five years old. Why is it that you need to buy a Mac? Buy a Dell. Because, honestly, no amount of your bitching and complaining will have any effect on the PowerBook lineup.

[jsw]

And all those who think the upgrade is terrible should be jumping for joy at the refurb market. I mean, the old ones were better, right? :rolleyes:

[Wonder Boy]

BTW, I am putting my money where my mouth is. I'll be buying a 17" Powerbook within the next 30-60 days. I anticipate that it will be "obsolete" within a few months after that when the "next big thing" comes out.

if i was in the market, i'd be waiting for rev b of the next big thing, making my wait that much longer. i just dont trust rev a anymore.

[mineis17inches]

Those benchmarks don't surprise me. The only good thing between the 1.5's and the new ones is the new price. If anyone is in the market for a PowerBook, have a look around for a 1.5Ghz model with the faster HD, and you will get more of a bargain!!

aussie_geek

That's what I thought of when I bought my 17er, it has the 128 meg 9700 (only difference is no 30 inch cinema support but who the hell plugs that into a laptop anyway?) it has the 5400 rpm drive and other than that the only difference is the 170 mghz. Well that and DVD±R capability. And Bluetooth 2.0...So while these current models exist, my resale value will be pretty good.

This speedbump is only here to fill the void for the G5 which will not be for a while now cause we just had an update, right? Yeah we're lookin at June at the earliest.

[berner]

Whoever said these chips are overclocked is sadly mistaken. A while back a guy on here posted an awesome point on the different g4 chips and it started with this: The question was are the 1.33 the 1.5 the same chip but one is just overclocked. The answer was no. The chips come off the line all making different numbers. Some come out making 1.23 some come out making 1.45 some come out making 1.67. It all varies. These chips are not overclocked.

the current PB chips are almost identical to what is being used in the new mac mini(in architecture not clock speeds) and here is a picture of a mac mini chip getting overclocked.
http://www.lbodnar.dsl.pipex.com/macmini/
[according to apple-history: pb family= freescale 7447a, mac mini= 7447]
if the powerbooks are supposed to represent the leading edge of laptop performance than they would have been running at 1.67 9 months ago.

[therevolution]

Don't need one enough so I'll wait as long as I can.

Sounds like someone doesn't like it when people disagree with them. You must think your opinion is the only one that matters. That's quite an ego you have going there. God forbid someone doesn't think everything Apple releases is gold. Get a grip. This is the real world and Apple dropped the ball plain and simple. Deal with it.
Deal with what? You're the one complaining about how terrible they are. I never disagreed with you; in fact, I basically feel the same way you do. I'm not thrilled with the hardware either. But what's your complaining going to solve? I'm not some Apple fanatic who thinks they can do no wrong, but I'm sick of seeing people whine about the same old things.

Apple hardware has always been priced higher than PC hardware. If you're waiting for some magical update to change that, you'll be waiting quite a while. I think the updates are fine, considering the few features they did add along with the price drop. You don't? Good for you.

No need to get catty, either. I just tried to point out the positive, but since you seem so intent on bashing the PowerBooks for the sake of bashing them... why bother?

[joshua_msu]

10 months waiting for this??????????????


HAHA, gotta be kidding me. This should have been the upgrade one year ago.

[mcgarry]

Just for kicks, how about a wee look back in time:

Mac born, using 68000 chip, 1984
Mac II, first mac with 68020 chip, March 1987
Mac IIx, first mac with 68030 chip, September 1988
Mac Portable, first officially portable Mac, with 68000 chip, September 1989

Quadras 700 and 900, first Macs with 68040 chip, October 1991
PowerBooks 140 and 170, first PowerBooks (with 68030 chip), October 1991

PowerMacs 6100/7100/8100, first PowerPC (601) Macs, March 1994
PowerBooks 520/540, with 68040 chip, May 1994

PowerMacs 8500/9500, PowerPC 604, August 1995
PowerBook 5300 series, first PowerPC (603e) PowerBooks, August 1995

THE EXCEPTION:
PowerMac G3, November 1997
PowerBook G3, November 1997

PowerMacs G4, September 1999
PowerBook G4, January 2001

PowerMac G5, June 2003
PowerBook ___ ???


Please note this is more than a little tongue-in-cheek, and I certainly may have missed a few details or gotten a number wrong here and there.

I am not suggesting that every chip is created equal or that the history determines the future, but simply that this apparent lag in moving from the G4 is not without precedent, and is actually pretty normal in Mac-land. I'm aware that there are a ton of stories and important factors behind each of these dates; I'm just being general here; there are other ways of slicing it. I'm not saying this is good or bad, that's just the way it has been, and is, though of course it could be different. What's my point? Personally, sure, I'd like to see better PowerBooks, but I'm not about to set the roof on fire over it.

[maxvamp]

Howabout a Powerbook with a Power5?? Ok, in might be about 10" thick and weight 45 lbs... But how cool would that be??!!!


Actually, IBM looks to be using a 64Bit altivec enabled processor as the core of the Cell proc. Yes, it is a little stripped ( i believe that it's base logic core was compared to the PPC 601 ), but ....

- The G4 74xx series is really long in the tooth, primarily due to the bus speed.
- Freescale does have a 32-bit proc that solved this problem, but it requires a board redesign, and I am not sure that;
a) Freescale can reliably produce processors,
b) Apple wants to stay 32-bit ( if for no other reason, marketing )

- IBM looks to be aggressively trying to retake the PPC market, and logically should be trying to get back into the embedded market with something more than a 750xx

I would not be surprised if IBM releases an embedded processor that is 64-Bit with VMX. I doubt this would be a derivative of the 970. Couple that with the stopgap release that this PowerBook release obviously is, and I would not be surprised to be surprised with something other than the obvious this summer.

Just my 2 cents ( and ramblings )
Max.

[aswitcher]

Well its nice to know my now superceeded machine aint that much behind the leaders... :)

Would like to have 2 finger scroll, brighter backlight and 100 gig HDD, but its a fine machine without these...

[edgarj]

My 12" PB G4 1.25 has become virtually useless for what I need it for (CPU intensive scientific analysis, FlowJo software mainly). I can crunch 3-4 times the data on my dual 2.5 or the Xeon's in the lab, and even mundane web browsing, file duplication, image editing, etc seems painfully sluggish on the PB. Transitioning to my PB each night is harsh! The performance spread between workstation and laptop is much slimmer on the PC side, and this is becoming a crisis issue for apple. I love my super-sleek PB, but for what I make a living doing, I'd settle for a clunky but fast option any day (pretty much what the the fast PC laptops have delivered recently). The PB is just another "digital lifestyle" device as it stands, and while fine for many, it is screwing those who truly need the CPU power and I'm already seeing some niche software im my field (traditionally very macentric) offering PC versions for the first time ever. Why not just build (for now) an 8 pound dual G4 mobile workstation for the interim and ditch it when the technology allows... its like Apple's focus has become nothing but the superficial. I love the design and perfectionist element of Apple's products, but much of their base is in professional applications that require performance, and there simply is no Apple laptop for that market as of now. I'm through waiting and am going to have to get another desktop for home. Glad those handles are built in on the PowerMac's.

[maxvamp]

Why not just build (for now) an 8 pound dual G4 mobile workstation for the interim and ditch it when the technology allows.

The 133 Bus would still be a heavy impediment, and offer very little help in your situation.

I have to say that I am a little surprised that anyone would want to do heavy scientific calcs on a laptop. Usually, laptops are net the best in design for very long heavy processor usage. I believe that usually the heat distribution systems are more optimized for a lot of CPU idle time.

Max.

[alset]

WORST-- UPGRADE-- EVAR!!!
OK, I'll bite.... Price came down, features went up. If it doesn't satisfy you, don't buy it. Those who wish for a more powerful machine for their money should either buy a desktop system (this should be obvious) or sink cash into whatever alternative seems so convenient to cite.

Obviously, you use a Mac for a reason. OS X and iApps are not an excuse for performance. Design is not an excuse for performance. Performance is a means to enjoy the experience.

I find performance more than acceptable on older hardware and outstanding on new hardware. If you feel that you have been taken advantage of, please put your money where your mouth is and purchase a different platform.

[SurfAddict]

Now I'm an avid windows laptop user seeing as we have 4 sitting around my house one of which is a brand new Qosmio 17" with HD screen and all and u kno wut its damn nice. But the execution of the laptop of being a laptop just isnt all that great. I just got this 17" on monday ( ordered last monday) and it runs great no probs at all. This thing has plenty of speed for me ( Final Cut Express, Logic, WoW are the roughest on it) I understand that some of you guys need proccesor speed but all those PC laptops in my house are around at least 2" thick and weigh in around 10 pounds. How do you expect apple to get that powerful of components into a laptop that is this thin. This is my first mac and I love it I got 3hrs of batt life today on highest performance settings, that 17 Qosmio gets around 40 mins on energy saver. So no its not a dual-core g4 (which i wanted so badly) but it does pretty damn well much better than my 20" iMac G4 also the last revision.

The iMac belongs to another family member I have had very limited time with it but from what ive seen in iPhoto i can smack around the iMac handily

[edgarj]

The 133 Bus would still be a heavy impediment, and offer very little help in your situation.

I have to say that I am a little surprised that anyone would want to do heavy scientific calcs on a laptop. Usually, laptops are net the best in design for very long heavy processor usage. I believe that usually the heat distribution systems are more optimized for a lot of CPU idle time.

Max.

Actually, the Dell XPS laptop and the like some colleagues are using for the same software screams on FPU intensive tasks….. very close to my dual 2.5, ugly and nearly 10lbs, but very portable still. The endpoint quicksilver G4's do very well with FPU intensive tasks, so it isn't just FSB/memory's game that is lagging in the PB. The CPU is relatively ancient. There are MANY professional applications demanding both performance and mobility, so site specific desktop workstations isn't always a solution. I spend around 1/8 of my life at conferences, as do many scientists, and the concept of a "laptop workstation" is not science fiction. The PC industry derives form from function, albeit with no attention to aesthetic or battery life. The Apple directive of making the technology conform to a size/style format is always going to yield big lag periods with every CPU generation. This current generation is a thermal/energy nightmare, and the lag is long and still counting... but two G4's (w/ little emphasis on power management) is todays technology if the wrapper wasn't more important to Apple than the candy bar. My PB is a dream for surfing the web at the airport, but I don't word-process or web browse for a living, and it is a dinosaur for any task not tolerating three-year-old performance. Rant tank empty.

[Xtremehkr]

I know it is not what most people wanted. But how much more unhappy would you be with a PBG5 that literally melted in your lap?

[Demon Hunter]

Nothing else really separates the lines. (well, apart from shinyness).

I agree though, we should definitely NOT compare ibook or powerbook to PC lappies, at which point they both look pathetic (and I'm an Apple fan). The next person to tell me that a G4 1.5 is anything CLOSE to a P-M 1.5 gets shot. Honestly.

Cemil, you're my new hero. :D

You should check out what I have going here (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=109582). Being a mobile Mac gamer, that's like a triple whammy, but what can I say I'm a masochist.

Edgarj makes a lot of good points. It saddens me that my Powerbook feels like more of a fancy watch than a cutting-edge notebook computer.

But I have faith, they must have something big up their sleeves for WWDC. If they don't, I fear for the professional segment that Edgarj refers to... these people rely on Mac OS X, and to see Apple lose the scientific community (along with others) would be devastating, and is really not that far from reality...

[m4rc]

That link will enable the new "two finger scrolling" on older powerbooks. It's just a software feature anyways, not a hardware one.


It is a feature, but ultimately the hardware is new, the keyboard and trackpad were ADB and are now USB I believe.


Ultimately, I don't get why people are moaning. you get more machine for less money, I do see that it isn't a super upgrade, but it was not announced as one either. If it was annopunced in a blaze of glory at a keynote then fair enough, but they just slipped onto the site one day. If you have a 1.5Gig then no, you are not really missing out, if you have just paid for a 1.5Gig you may feel annoyed that you could have got a couple of new features and more Ram for less money, which is true but then that's the same with so many big purcahses you can make. If you have an older computer and wanted to upgrade you will be glad of the updates, as you get slightly more for slightly less - never a bad thing right?

People can't really have expected better benchmark results than shown here can they? A small upgrade will obviously only give a small upgrade in performance. It's a bit like going out to buy a new BMW, you find that the models you are interested in all have 10% more power, a slightly bigger fuel tank and a couple of extra gimmicks and they have taken a bit off of the price, anyone about to buy won't say no, as they were interested anyway, anyone who had just bought won't be too gutted as they still have a great car, and ultimately it 10% power boost does not mean 10% faster, either top end or away from the lights. If the BMW was not the car for you though and you wanted more power, a different shape, a new interior, you would just have to wait until the bring out the latest model - maybe that will be the new BMW G5, maybe it will be a Dual Engine!

[bbyrdhouse]

I ordered my very first Mac on February 7, 2005. And it was a Powerbook 15", 1.67 maxed out with edu pricing. I have been like a kid waiting on Christmas ever since I ordered it, but as I read these threads I begin to wonder if the $2,500.00 I just spent was a waste.

But I read other threads and folks are as excited about the new releases as others are diappointed.

Since this is my first Mac I for one have decided that I will be excited and happy.

[ASP272]

Nothing to see here . . . Move on people . . . Nothing to see

No surprises here.

[John Rivers]

Alright the new Powerbooks look nice and fancy, and as a student, I can dig the cheap price.

I was wondering if any experienced mac users can help me out with something (currently PC user, wanna "switch"). I haven't had much experience with the apparently dreaded "Revision A" Apple product people seem to be afraid of. I am likely studying abroad next semester (so, September-ish) and would like a nice laptop to bring with me, something good which I can edit some video (Final Cut preferably cause I probably one day will get into film), record and mix music, and play the only game I really see myself playing for a long time, World of Warcraft ( :D ). So, should I just jump on these new powerbooks now and enjoy the final G4 powerbook in all its updated revised and perfected glory, or wait a few months till a *new* powerbook be released and take my chances there? Opinions? Thanks :)

[BenRoethig]

Apple is at the mercy of the chip manufacturers here. I have so been hoping for the 7448 freescale chip to be ready, i'm sure that is why they held out for so long with this last update. Alas, it obviously didn't meet the deadline. so instead, here is a suckass lite overclock of an already straining chip with some fancy extras to make you forget that this upgrade was possible 9 months ago. so if freescale hasn't got the 7448 ready now, that doesn't look great for the dualcore g4's in the near future either. Damn i wish they could get ahead of the curve here! Same same for the G5 in the powermacs, its all up to IBM, if antares isn't ready soon, expect a price drop and some other lame "features" in a minor powermac upgrade.
it sucks to have some one else set the timelines, when all the hardware is around in good quantities apple happily schedules speedbumps every 6 months (my observation of the ibook line, which uses the cpus that the PB's no longer need).

Kevin in Canada

The 7448 is a regular G4 with another Bus bump. There won't be much of speed increase until the 8600 series or another all new design is fielded.

[sbb155]

It seems like the best way to spend $2500 now is to buy a Powermac G5 or an Imac G5 for your desk, and a 12" ibook for travel, instead of a loaded PB.... Of course the PB is so much sexier...

[sirjimithy1]

Anyone complaining about how insignificant the hardware upgrades are is obviously missing the point. Plain and simple. Apple's main focus since MWSF '05 has been to put things in a competative price rance with Wintel alternatives. Mac mini, iPod Shuffle, etc. Putting two new hardware features (Sudden Motion Sensor, scrolling trackpad) along with slight performace boosts (SLIGHT) while simultaneously dropping the price is a feat for any company. I was planning to buy a PowerBook before, but I'm more impressed now that I'm getting a better PowerBook for less money. Look at the big picture, people. 15" 1.67 GHz here I come!

[bbyrdhouse]

Anyone complaining about how insignificant the hardware upgrades are is obviously missing the point. Plain and simple. Apple's main focus since MWSF '05 has been to put things in a competative price rance with Wintel alternatives. Mac mini, iPod Shuffle, etc. Putting two new hardware features (Sudden Motion Sensor, scrolling trackpad) along with slight performace boosts (SLIGHT) while simultaneously dropping the price is a feat for any company. I was planning to buy a PowerBook before, but I'm more impressed now that I'm getting a better PowerBook for less money. Look at the big picture, people. 15" 1.67 GHz here I come!
Thats the way that I am looking at it.

And who knows several months down the road maybe I can sell it on e-bay and get close to what I paid for it and get the newer revision???

[sirjimithy1]

Thats the way that I am looking at it.

And who knows several months down the road maybe I can sell it on e-bay and get close to what I paid for it and get the newer revision???

Yeah, Apple hardware holds its value very well

Example 1 (http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=14909&item=5749763302&rd=1)
Example 2 (http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=51034&item=5749074715&rd=1)
Example 3 (http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=4602&item=5163155878&rd=1)

Can Windoze users sell a 3 year old laptop for over $1000? I think not. ;)

[jsw]

So, should I just jump on these new powerbooks now and enjoy the final G4 powerbook in all its updated revised and perfected glory, or wait a few months till a *new* powerbook be released and take my chances there? Opinions? Thanks :)
I think the fun of using it for six or more months before any announcement will more than outweigh the joy of waiting forever to receive the Rev A release of a fundamentally new PB. Of course, you can always sell your G4 PB and buy a new one later on.

[deputy_doofy]

I ordered my very first Mac on February 7, 2005. And it was a Powerbook 15", 1.67 maxed out with edu pricing. I have been like a kid waiting on Christmas ever since I ordered it, but as I read these threads I begin to wonder if the $2,500.00 I just spent was a waste.

But I read other threads and folks are as excited about the new releases as others are diappointed.

Since this is my first Mac I for one have decided that I will be excited and happy.

You definitely should be happy. Most of the people who are upset are/were hoping for desktop alternative Powerbooks, which of course, don't exist yet - any may not exist for some time.
The current crop of Powerbooks are definitely a good offering for someone new to the Powerbook line.
For someone linke me who has a 12" Powerbook @ 1GHz (133MHz FSB), there's no significant reason to upgrade.
I will tell you, though, that I love this Powerbook. And that makes me think you will like your that much more. It's got many more cool features. :D

[berner]

The 7448 is a regular G4 with another Bus bump. There won't be much of speed increase until the 8600 series or another all new design is fielded.
you are right, its not a new chip or anything, its is a slightly optimized g4 with 200mhz bus, the best part though is it is manufactured using the 90 nm process. this i'll be a clue that the e600 chips are on their way. also smaller process means less power consumption and heat (something that matters to me as a laptop user) and a bit more room to ramp up the clock speed( at least ti'll the power consumption and heat profile get back into the present ballpark of the 7447a).
i am as anxious as the rest of you to be blown away by the next generation PB, i just would have liked the 7448 to finish the line for this gen. of g4 PBs

[billystlyes]

I know everyone wants the G5 in the Powerbook. Apple and news reports have blamed heat but what about battery life? What kind of battery life would the G5 get? Moving forward I bet they pop a Dual-Core G4 in it before the G5. These updates were nice but there was no big performance upgrade. The G4 looks stretched out to it's end with performance.

[Mainyehc]

Therefore, what exactly is the $500 difference between the ibook 12" and the pbook 12"?

Lets see:

Same resolution screen

Wrong! The 12'' PowerBook's screen resolution is actually the same as the 14'' iBook...

[manu chao]

you are right, its not a new chip or anything, its is a slightly optimized g4 with 200mhz bus, the best part though is it is manufactured using the 90 nm process. this i'll be a clue that the e600 chips are on their way. also smaller process means less power consumption and heat (something that matters to me as a laptop user) and a bit more room to ramp up the clock speed( at least ti'll the power consumption and heat profile get back into the present ballpark of the 7447a).
i am as anxious as the rest of you to be blown away by the next generation PB, i just would have liked the 7448 to finish the line for this gen. of g4 PBs
To repeat myself, a 2.0 Ghz 7448 based Powerbook with 20% faster FSB (2.5 Ghz Dual has a 25% faster bus, and everybody says this is quite noticeably) in about 4 - 5 months from now would be very welcome (to me at least). Much better than a 11% faster processor with the same FSB in 9 months.

But I guess some people in this forum would not be too happy.

[manu chao]

Wrong! The 12'' PowerBook's screen resolution is actually the same as the 14'' iBook...

All the iBooks and the 12" Powerbook have the same resolution 768x1024. But as others have pointed out, it is $300 not $500 if account for bigger harddrive etc.

[Mainyehc]

Then stop whining and buy another laptop.

Oh, shut up! You should have said instead "Then stop whining and buy a PeeCee laptop"... He's right, you know?

Everyone goes like this "oooh, Apple is very innovative and always ahead of the pack, and blah blah blah...". Ok, Apple pioneered FW 400, and USB, and now BT 2.0, and they were the first to kill floppy drives, etc... But hey, I'm seeing more and more cheap-O Wintel boxes equipped with Dual-Layer DVD burners... WTF?? How exactly is Apple ahead of its competition on that one?

I can accept that most Macs have smaller HDs than most PCs, yes. I can accept that the iPod's battery life is shorter than that of many other competitores, yes. I can even accept that most Macs come with less RAM than they should (since you can add cheaper, 3rd party RAM), yes. And I can even accept that Apple has SuperDrives slower than most DVD burners (mine is 4x, when most at that time were at 8x). But you know, making people wait SO LONG for a standard like that to appear on high-end products is not a great idea, IMHO.

Sure, 2005 will be the year of HD... How about DUAL-LAYER SuperDrives?? Will they skip those and go with BluRay or HD-DVD instead? Honestly, I don't care... Do you know that some G5 PowerMacs actually come with Dual-Layer SuperDrives, crippled by their firmware? HA...

And you know, I'm a Mac user and I expect that I won't buy a desktop or laptop PC anymore... But that doesn't make me an Apple zealot or something. In this case, I'm with those that think these upgrades are ridiculous, not because of the speed but because of the features. Those are what supposedly make up for the paltry speed bump, but I most digress, they aren't *enough*.

/rant

[manu chao]

Oh, shut up! You should have said instead "Then stop whining and buy a PeeCee laptop"... He's right, you know?

Everyone goes like this "oooh, Apple is very innovative and always ahead of the pack, and blah blah blah...". Ok, Apple pioneered FW 400, and USB, and now BT 2.0, and they were the first to kill floppy drives, etc... But hey, I'm seeing more and more cheap-O Wintel boxes equipped with Dual-Layer DVD burners... WTF?? How exactly is Apple ahead of its competition on that one?

I can accept that most Macs have smaller HDs than most PCs, yes. I can accept that the iPod's battery life is shorter than that of many other competitores, yes. I can even accept that most Macs come with less RAM than they should (since you can add cheaper, 3rd party RAM), yes. And I can even accept that Apple has SuperDrives slower than most DVD burners (mine is 4x, when most at that time were at 8x). But you know, making people wait SO LONG for a standard like that to appear on high-end products is not a great idea, IMHO.

Sure, 2005 will be the year of HD... How about DUAL-LAYER SuperDrives?? Will they skip those and go with BluRay or HD-DVD instead? Honestly, I don't care... Do you know that some G5 PowerMacs actually come with Dual-Layer SuperDrives, crippled by their firmware? HA...

And you know, I'm a Mac user and I expect that I won't buy a desktop or laptop PC anymore... But that doesn't make me an Apple zealot or something. In this case, I'm with those that think these upgrades are ridiculous, not because of the speed but because of the features. Those are what supposedly make up for the paltry speed bump, but I most digress, they aren't *enough*.

/rant

O.k. Apple was slow to offer 100 GB drives (as they were easily available even to end-users already last summer), but that is they only example, I can think of, of them having smaller HDs on offer than the competition.

I also don't know whether slot-loading Dual-Layer drives are already available.

The general problem is that Apple updates its hardware only every 6 to 11 months. If some new technology becomes available inbetween these updates, Apple "cannot" incorporate them.
Reasons for this are:
- maintaining a simple, 'stable' product structure, in order not to confuse customers, making support and testing of new software easier and creating a clearly structured used computers market (fascilitating business for everyone,-> bigger market, possibly higher prices).
- helping marketing by having less but than rather 'big bang' announcements (who would write about adding BT 2.0 alone)
- simplifying logistics, reduced costs for fewer roll-outs of new computers

[QCassidy352]

I agree that people are whinning and crying here for no reason at all. They are faster (if only a little), and have several other nice improvements all for less money than the previous generation. I don't see how that's a bad thing.

But I would also remind you that when the previous generation came out (1.33/1.5) people defending the upgrade said exactly the same things that are being said now - "not great, but a nice little bump; a good final revision before the G5s." Well, turns out that wasn't the final revision... dunno if this is, either. We can hope though.

[mcgarry]

... [snip] The PC industry derives form from function, albeit with no attention to aesthetic or battery life. ...

edgarj, I do NOT disagree with your main points, at least in whole, but I just wanted to put an asterisk on this particular point. Historically, the PC industry also derives (their) form from (Apple's) form. Specifically, think of how hard it was to get a widescreen PC laptop before the TiBooks, or a 17" PC laptop before the AlBooks. None of the big guys, at least, were doing it, as best as I can remember. I just remember my PC-only friends in the laptop market and their inability to find these features in Dells, HPs, Sonys at the time, but do correct me if I'm wrong. I also remember DVD-burning in laptops being first in Apples, but again I could be mistaken. Maybe this all only applies to non-behemoth laptops or something-- I'm no PC history expert-- but I think there's at least some truth in this attempt of mine to muddy the waters. But yes, this is history, and I know you were more refering to the present.

My own limited experience with PC laptops (I've had two, but not since 2001), with a Fujitsu and a Sharp, is that their form also followed the function of being as cheaply made as possible. Or at least that's what I noticed when they were working.

So while I agree with you in general, I urge you to not cut it quite so cleanly when it comes to this form-follows-function stuff. For your uses, the PBs are inadequate, I am not disagreeing, but for other people, having a 17" laptop form that is 1" thick and gets reasonable battery life could actually be important parts of function, etc.

[plinden]

I agree though, we should definitely NOT compare ibook or powerbook to PC lappies, at which point they both look pathetic (and I'm an Apple fan). The next person to tell me that a G4 1.5 is anything CLOSE to a P-M 1.5 gets shot. Honestly.

It depends. No on would say that the G4 1.5 /chip/ is faster than the P-M 1.5 (or some would, but we can ignore them), but a computer is more than a chip.

I work mainly on an IBM T40p 1.6GHz P-M, doing mostly Java development, and in general I'm very pleased with it. But someone in another thread posted some Java compile times for some processors/OS combinations, and he got results something like 13 seconds for a T42P 1.6GHz (similar in specs to mine) running linux, and 26 seconds for a 1.5 G4 PowerBook

I ran the same compilation on my laptop, which uses WinXP pro, and guess what time I got - 28 seconds.

What the fsck? My laptop is slower at Java development than a 1.5 GHz Powerbook, even though Java on MaxOSX is generally considered to be slower than on other OSs?

The only way I could get the compile time lower was to switch off the virus checker - down to 17 seconds. But there's no way I'm connecting my PC to the outside world without a virus checker.

I don't really think I'll notice if the PB is slower than my current PC, and I'm very seriously considering getting one of the new 15" PowerBooks if I can persuade my wife (actually, I have a plan - I promised my wife a new laptop when she got a new job. She's close to that now, so I'll get her a 15" PB. If she doesn't like it, I'll take it. If she does like it, she'll insist that I get one too)

[jsw]

The only way I could get the compile time lower was to switch off the virus checker - down to 17 seconds. But there's no way I'm connecting my PC to the outside world with a virus checker.
That's why I'm getting a PB. Work provides me with a nice Dell with a beautiful screen. However, they also (a) buy 4200RPM drives for some unknown reason, (b) encrypt the whole thing, slowing it even more, (c) run God only knows what other stuff on it, and (d) wisely keep a virus checker on at all times. As a result, my fast laptop is a slow piece of crap.

If I bring another Windows system into work, it needs to have the same stuff on it or else I can't bring it in. If I bring a Mac in - at least now, before someone decides to muck with the policy - all I need to do is put any work items in an encrypted folder. 5400RPM drive (yes, yes, I know you can get faster PC disks, but not for me via work), no encryption on most stuff, no unknown services running, no anti-virus. As a result, my PB will run laps around a technically faster Wintel device. So, the new PBs at lower prices seem very attractive to me. Of course, I'd like dual-core and/or better screen res and/or a second mouse button, but I'll deal with it.

[ThinkMatt]

I see both sides of this discussion as viable. One thing that matters most is "how are you going to use it?" I saw one gentlemen compare his dual Xeon workstation to his PB. How is this remotely fair? Find me a PeeCee laptop that can even compare to that?

I also spec'd laptops at both IBM and Sony to find something comparable to a 17" laptop (as that is what I am sorta interested in right now). IBM couldn't come through as they didn't have anything that big. Sony was the closest. They had a 17" model and with a 1.7ghz P-M, 100gig hd, 1 gig RAM, etc. it was about $2700. With my edu pricing (and I know not everyone gets that, but for the sake of comparison), I can get a 17" PB with the same kind of specs for $2773.

The OS is really the intagible that makes this a coin toss. For MOST (not saying that ANY laptop can be a desktop replacement for high-end or dual machines) people either PC or PB laptops will suffice. If you want cheap, go with the iBook or low-end PC. If you want high end, there's a pretty good race between high end PC (laptops) and PB.

It's best to compare models (12" to 12", 15" to 15" and 17" to 17") to get a true feel of cost, features etc. I for one, am sold on the usage of the OS with my laptop. That's where the bargain and ROI is for me.

Oh, and a question? I have a 15", 1ghz TiBook. Would you recommend an upgrage this summer (education reasons) IF nothing better comes out at WWDC? (as i cant get it any sooner)

[jsw]

Oh, and a question? I have a 15", 1ghz TiBook. Would you recommend an upgrage this summer (education reasons) IF nothing better comes out at WWDC? (as i cant get it any sooner)
I'd wait at least that long. Your TiBook is slower than the current PBs, obviously, but not stunningly slower. If you wait, you know there will be an all-new PB out sooner or later. If there isn't one by WWDC, then there will be one in the fall, or winter, or whatever - but if you buy a new PB this summer (assuming no new releases up to that point), you'll kick yourself for not waiting. I have a 1999 400MHz G3 Lombard, so buying now works for me - I'm pretty sure I'll see a noticeable speed bump. ;)

[panphage]

And I've got a 450Mhz Cube. I fell in love with the new EDIT: *i*Mac /EDIT (DOH!), but I just don't want a desktop anymore. So when the PB speedbump came out, I bit. I figure I'll get at least a year out of it, then unload it on ebay for whatever the "next generation" is--all I want is a faster bus! Oh, and actual DDR support.

And for those complaining about the speedbump, man, I've been using a 450mhz g4 and I've been damn happy with it. Of course, I'd probably be astounded by a Dual Opteron beastie...but I'm just not doing that much hardcore science. ;)

[Surreal]

I personally couldn't care less about a G5 in a powerbook, but I >DO< care about a FSB increase. That is the real reason that a 1.6 G5 feels so much snappier than a 1.67 G4 (even though the G4 outperforms the G5)!
(cranky)

i reeally like what this one has to say. (it helps that i hold to this view :) )

i will not buy a powerbook until the fsb is at least 533 for this very reason. i REALLY want one, but it wouldnt be a wise move on my part to buythis revision. while a rev a will have its issues, i work in audio and need the extra throughput for hard disc samplers and virtual instruments.

[iTommy]

A Powerbook will be my first Mac purchase. Being new to the game, I cannot compare past equipment to the new updates, but I do recognize a price drop as an opportunity. It's obvious there won't be many (if any) changes until a dual core G4 or the elusive G5 arrives in a new type PB. I'm leaning towards purchasing the current, revisioned model as the wrinkles would have been ironed out as opposed to buying a Rev A G5 and finding that the battery lasts 45 mins. Any advice to a newby?

[cemil]

It depends. No on would say that the G4 1.5 /chip/ is faster than the P-M 1.5 (or some would, but we can ignore them), but a computer is more than a chip.

-snip-

I don't really think I'll notice if the PB is slower than my current PC, and I'm very seriously considering getting one of the new 15" PowerBooks if I can persuade my wife (actually, I have a plan - I promised my wife a new laptop when she got a new job. She's close to that now, so I'll get her a 15" PB. If she doesn't like it, I'll take it. If she does like it, she'll insist that I get one too)

I agree wholeheartedly that the computer is more than a chip, and frankly - for me, OS X is a HUGE deciding factor. (I am, after all, a mac fanatic). On the other hand, a PB just can't hold a candle to new PC laptops, I'm sorry. First of all, compiling is not only a CPU test, but also an I/O test. Similar HDs will help equalize that test.

On the other hand, if you want to see what a HUGE difference FSB speed makes, check out a bottom-of-the-line iMac (1.6 G5) vs the TOP-of-the-line pbook (17" 1.67 G4). That G4 will, in theory, on CPU intensive tasks that fit in the cache, OUTPERFORM the G5. Sit down and just play for a while. Feel how much snappier the iMac feels. It just feels like a faster machine! Windows pop up faster, applications switch faster, it just feels much more responsive. Keep in mind that the bottom-of-the-line iMac isn't specced any better than the pBook (in fact, worse in many ways).

Really, I made a mistake in saying that the G4 doesn't stack up against P-Ms. What I meant to say was that the architecture on G4 PowerBooks does not come close to stacking up to the newer P-M laptops. (FSB, RAM speed, etc).

The G4 is actually a pretty good chip. Bump that FSB up to 1/2 clock speed like the G5 and it'll be a monster of a chip.

[Surreal]

Bump that FSB up to 1/2 clock speed like the G5 and it'll be a monster of a chip.

we can dream, can't we? :D

that would be the day

[mcgarry]

A Powerbook will be my first Mac purchase. Being new to the game, I cannot compare past equipment to the new updates, but I do recognize a price drop as an opportunity. It's obvious there won't be many (if any) changes until a dual core G4 or the elusive G5 arrives in a new type PB. I'm leaning towards purchasing the current, revisioned model as the wrinkles would have been ironed out as opposed to buying a Rev A G5 and finding that the battery lasts 45 mins. Any advice to a newby?

Hi, and welcome.

I suggest that if a PB meets your current needs, and you want a new PB sooner than later, go for it. Browsing this forum will offer more good advice.

No one here can tell you when the next major revision will be exactly, what it will be exactly, or how it will perform exactly. We can complain (or not) about what the current ones aren't, but as I've tried to point out in my posts in this thread, the current Mac laptop lineup is in a good, or at least not unusual, place in terms of its relative pricing and Mac laptop history-- all within the context of Mac-land, at least, and that's what -land we're in if we want to buy a Mac.

[devman]

A Powerbook will be my first Mac purchase. Being new to the game, I cannot compare past equipment to the new updates, but I do recognize a price drop as an opportunity. It's obvious there won't be many (if any) changes until a dual core G4 or the elusive G5 arrives in a new type PB. I'm leaning towards purchasing the current, revisioned model as the wrinkles would have been ironed out as opposed to buying a Rev A G5 and finding that the battery lasts 45 mins. Any advice to a newby?

That thinking is very sound (it's what I would do). But these things are hard to generalise - because they involve personal/individual value judgements.

[devman]

I have no trouble agreeing to disagree :-) Basically we're looking at it from opposite sides of the same coin.

Now, how about this link:
Two Finger Scrolling (http://www-users.kawo2.rwth-aachen.de/~razzfazz/)

That link will enable the new "two finger scrolling" on older powerbooks. It's just a software feature anyways, not a hardware one.

Just thought everyone might like a little piece of the new pie.

That does work, but it's not just software it's both. It doesn't work as smoothly at different speeds without the new hardware.

[Surreal]

why do people say that the G5 is going to be power hungry?

isnt its watt consumptions something like 12 -18 watts...same as the dual core g4 and close to the g4 we know and...use.

[Demon Hunter]

The G4 is actually a pretty good chip. Bump that FSB up to 1/2 clock speed like the G5 and it'll be a monster of a chip.

Unfortunately, the G4 they are using only supports a 200 Mhz FSB I read somewhere. :(

[kherdin]

Naysayers, read this.

Let's take the PowerBook 1.67's SpeedMark 3.3 scores, and the PowerMac G5 1.8 SP SpeedMark 3.3 scores (macworld didn't have the 1.6's speedmark 3.3 scores, only 3.2 which differ).

Sources:
http://www.macworld.com/news/2005/02/11/pbg4benchmarks/index.php
http://www.macworld.com/2004/11/reviews/singlecpupowermac/index.php

PB G4 1.67 Score: 142
PM G5 1.8 Score: 165

Score/Ghz PB: 142/1.67 = 85.0
Score/Ghz PM: 165/1.8 = 91.7

So you can see the G5 is more efficient per mhz, but by how much?

91.7/85.0 = 1.079

That's right, the monstrous tower PowerMac G5 with 9 fans and a huge FSB and super fast memory, is only ~8% faster for the same speed than a PowerBook G4 which is running an ultra energy-efficient G4, in a one inch case.

Sounds like the G4 is still a pretty good chip, contrary to what people think. Scale it up, a little bit more, and you have something which could give the mobile-G5 that IBM is working on a run for it's money!

[Surreal]

That's right, the monstrous tower PowerMac G5 with 9 fans and a huge FSB and super fast memory, is only ~8% faster for the same speed than a PowerBook G4 which is running an ultra energy-efficient G4, in a one inch case.

Sounds like the G4 is still a pretty good chip, contrary to what people think. Scale it up, a little bit more, and you have something which could give the mobile-G5 that IBM is working on a run for it's money!

except...when i run logic. or protools. or..well, i think you know what kind of applications i would say.

the g4 is NOT worthwhile in it's current form. 200 mhz fronside bus? pc laptops have 533...then imac has 300 MIN and the g5 tower...oh my. these benchmarks show that they may be comparable. the benchmarks do NOT establish the simply scaling a G4 is all that needs to happen.

as someone who wants to use my computer for pro level audio, i have to consider how a computer will run the latest versions of programs. a 3000 dollar computer should eat anything i can throw at it without a hiccough. powerbooks are not currently capable of that. i have tripped powerbooks up teaching garageband.

[maya]

This is great news, it signals the END of the G4 on the PowerBook line. No dual core or G5, maybe a Cell PowerBook. ;) :)


I still cannot believe that the G4 is still in a "Power" line, this is crazy and for so long. I remember when the PBG3 last rev only have minimal bumps and 6 months later the PBG4 Ti was released. I suspect the same regardless of what Apple says. They have lied in the past and I do not think different otherwise of them now.

The G4 in a PB back then was also hot and got rotten battery life, yet they still released it. Apple will pull the same card once again and you can count on it. I feel sorry for those who bought this last rev PBG4, these people will kick themselves for not waiting for 6 more months. ;) :)

I bet the PB hardware dept is hanging they heads in shame for this craptacular release with the "Power" name, and also laughing that people are buying this crap. :p ;) :)

[mcgarry]

This is great news, it signals the END of the G4 on the PowerBook line. No dual core or G5, maybe a Cell PowerBook. ;) :)

I still cannot believe that the G4 is still in a "Power" line, this is crazy and for so long. I remember when the PBG3 last rev only have minimal bumps and 6 months later the PBG4 Ti was released. I suspect the same regardless of what Apple says. They have lied in the past and I do not think different otherwise of them now.


Ok, this is getting silly. Do you really believe what you are writing--that this is "crazy"-- even in light of that fact that the current lifespan of the G4 in a PB is well within the normal bounds of Mac history when it comes to such things (see my previous post in this thread)?

The "power" line, furthermore, is relative. A PowerMac is relative to an iMac. A PowerBook is relative to an iBook. And in that sense, the P in PB withstands scrutiny (see my previous posts in this thread). You may not like that there is a mismatch between the top desktops and the top laptops ... fair enough, but guess what, that's the way it's been for almost all of the last 20 years of Mac-land; this is not some new and dastardly plot.

Some people here might have legitimate performance gripes based on their specific needs, but may I humby request that we put an end to the pointless bashing please.


The G4 in a PB back then was also hot and got rotten battery life, yet they still released it. Apple will pull the same card once again and you can count on it. I feel sorry for those who bought this last rev PBG4, these people will kick themselves for not waiting for 6 more months. ;) :)

Yeah, they'll kick themselves-- unless they bought a computer to do what they needed it to do, when they needed it to do it. Yeah, that's nuts!


I bet the PB hardware dept is hanging they heads in shame for this craptacular release with the "Power" name, and also laughing that people are buying this crap. :p ;) :)


If the PB is crap, then really the whole Apple laptop lineup is crap-- especially if its the G4 and a slow FSB that makes something crap-- since the PBs are noticeably better-equipped than the iBooks, and while I don't necessarily disagree with you in the abstract ("crap" is not the word I would choose), let's at least be fair about this.

[cemil]

The "power" line, furthermore, is relative.
-snip-
If the PB is crap, then really the whole Apple laptop lineup is crap-- especially if its the G4 and a slow FSB that makes something crap-- since the PBs are noticeably better-equipped than the iBooks, and while I don't necessarily disagree with you in the abstract ("crap" is not the word I would choose), let's at least be fair about this.

Ahh McGarry, there's the rub. The iBook is aimed at a completely different market. There is nothing crap about it for its market. The trouble is, although the iBook and the PowerBook are aimed at completely different markets with completely different needs, they have basically the same capabilities.

Compare the iMac to the PowerMacs. Single Processor, slower FSB, slower Video Card, etc in the iMac. No problem. You don't buy an iMac if you NEED dual processors. Clearly differentiated lines aimed at different markets.

Now, lets look at iBooks. Slower processor, FSB - less video. Thats fine for the market its aimed at. No problem at all. Most consumers would be MORE than happy with the iBooks, as it is MORE than sufficient to do 90% of tasks. On the other hand, the PowerBook is aimed at a prosumer/professional market. For these people, MORE power is required. The problem is, the gap between the iBook and PowerBook is not enough. Thats why you won't hear me complaining about iBooks being underpowered (because I don't think they are for their market) but I will bitch about the PowerBooks being underpowered. If I'm going to pay that kind of money for a laptop, I expect TOP-NOTCH performance out of it, because that is why I'm buying it. If I just want something to cruise the net, do iPhoto, etc - I'll get an iBook. I need more. I need a mobile workstation. I need this computer to be able to handle intense compiling sessions while encoding DVDs, etc.

This is the problem with the PowerBook. It doesn't suit the aims of its target market, unlike the iBook.

[swissmann]

Really shows how lackluster of an update this really was...
As far as processing performance but price drops and some added features is where the real update is. I agree with many other posts that we need a different processor in there be it dual core or G5 or whatever is better than these.

[Lacero]

Considering what many people use their PBs for, a 1.67 Ghz G4 is plenty powerful for everyday tasks, including encoding videos and making DVDs. I'd just like to see the chips transitioned to a 90nm process to balance battery life with performance.

[cemil]

Considering what many people use their PBs for, a 1.67 Ghz G4 is plenty powerful for everyday tasks, including encoding videos and making DVDs. I'd just like to see the chips transitioned to a 90nm process to balance battery life with performance.

Lacero,

None of us (as far as I can tell) dispute that the CPU is fast enough. The G4 is a good CPU. On the other, the FSB is nowhere NEAR fast enough. Combine a 1.67 G4 with a 833 FSB and you'll have a TERRIFIC lappie (maybe toss in more L2 as well).

[mcgarry]

cemil, you honestly believe that there is not enough separation within the laptop line? By what standard, the i-PowerMac standard? You honestly believe that the difference between an iMac and a PowerMac is substantively worlds apart from the i-PBook difference? I'm sorry, to me that flys in the face of reality, but admittedly gains some traction when you throw in DP. Even though I might want to agree with you on the DP point, there is a long history of top-of-the-line Mac desktops having features forever absent in the concurrent top-of-the-line laptops. At the moment, we can wish it was different, but I don't think it's fair to act like this is some huge problem. And by the way, where are the DP laptops in PC-land?

So I'll agree to disagree again. And to leave price aside for a moment, to repeat, if a PB is so woeful, the iBook is only still more woeful, with even slower G4s and slower FSBs. Now back to price: what kind of savings is that less-woefulness worth ... I don't know, maybe $300/20%? hmmmm. and again, hard to compare the 15" and 17" (please don't whip out the $500 number again-- laptops with 1/2 the HD and 1/2 the Ram are not comparable)

As for target markets, I don't disagree. But again, the price difference is fairly relative to the spec difference. If there were the same percentage differences, but the laptop line was on G5s, I'm pretty sure you wouldn't even be looking at this thread.

So I'll say it again, the current Mac laptop situation is not "crazy," especially in light of Mac history. Is it ideal? is it perfect? That's not what I'm talking about. It is a crisis of mammoth proportions? No. People have legit reasons to be pissed that the Mac laptops are not more powerful, but this needs to be kept in the proper perspective.

[cemil]

cemil, you honestly believe that there is not enough separation within the laptop line? By what standard, the i-PowerMac standard? You honestly believe that the difference between an iMac and a PowerMac is substantively worlds apart from the i-PBook difference? I'm sorry, to me that flys in the face of reality, but admittedly gains some traction when you throw in DP. Even though I might want to agree with you on the DP point, there is a long history of top-of-the-line Mac desktops having features forever absent in the concurrent top-of-the-line laptops. At the moment, we can wish it was different, but I don't think it's fair to act like this is some huge problem. And by the way, where are the DP laptops in PC-land?
-snip-

So I'll say it again, the current Mac laptop situation is not "crazy," especially in light of Mac history. Is it ideal? is it perfect? That's not what I'm talking about. It is a crisis of mammoth proportions? No. People have legit reasons to be pissed that the Mac laptops are not more powerful, but this needs to be kept in the proper perspective.

McGarry,

I don't believe there is enough separation in the laptop line at all. I think the difference between what a consumer needs and what a prosumer/professional needs is quite large, and I don't see that difference in the current laptop lines. Frankly, most consumers would be fine with a 500 MHz processor, let alone a 1.2 or anything else. On the other hand, professionals needs more because they are using cutting edge software that pushes the limits of hardware.

The thing about iMacs and PowerMacs is this: The difference isn't great, but thats because the iMac is quite overpowered for its target market. I would not be complaining about an iMac with a G4 - because that is probably enough for the target market.

On your point about DP PC laptops: No, there aren't any - but almost all PC laptops these days come with P-M processors with 533 FSB, high speed RAM, etc. A G5 1.6 would probably be somewhat close to a P-M 1.6 in performance, so that would be great. Also, a P-M 1.6 runs neck and neck with a much higher clocked P-4. Therefore, the gap in performance on the other side of the fence between laptop and desktop isn't really that great, until you start counting other things like RAID which you can't really do in a lappie anyways.

I do understand that some things aren't possible. Clearly, Apple couldn't put a G5 or DC G4 in the PowerBook. If they could've, they would've. On the other hand, throwing us a real bone would have been nice. Full Gig of ram on one stick standard, maybe upping the resolution on the screen, etc.

Also, I do believe this is a bit of a crisis, if only for the following reason: How does Apple now update the iBook line? The Buyer's Guide suggests we should see updates in the next 2 months or so. Are these gonna be bumped to 1.33/1.5? What will be the difference in the lines then? Because the G4 in its current incarnation CAN'T go any faster. We're already pushing the upper limits.

At this point, I'd be much happier with the following:
iBooks: 1.33/1.5 with 512 MB of ram standard. same prices.
PBooks: 1.5/1.67 with 1 GB of ram, HUGE, fast, large cached HDs, top-of-the-line video cards, higher res screen, etc. drop price another 250 or so. This would own up to the lack of CPU differentiation but make it worth the difference in other areas, while not limiting the iBook.

Anyways, good, civil discussion is always good. :-)

[matticus008]

At this point, I'd be much happier with the following:
iBooks: 1.33/1.5 with 512 MB of ram standard. same prices.
PBooks: 1.5/1.67 with 1 GB of ram, HUGE, fast, large cached HDs, top-of-the-line video cards, higher res screen, etc. drop price another 250 or so. This would own up to the lack of CPU differentiation but make it worth the difference in other areas, while not limiting the iBook.

Anyways, good, civil discussion is always good. :-)

Look, I'm with you on the PowerBooks not having the power pro users need. I know that they currently do not. If I were in the marker for a pro notebook last year, this would have fit the bill nicely. I agree with McGarry, though, about the historic delay in getting the PowerBooks onto newer desktop hardware. They've tended to average about 2 years behind, which does still give them a few months to go G5. The only problem is that the G4 lasted longer than many other CPUs on the market, and stuck with a single-clock 133MHz max FSB with no actual support for DDR. When released, these were great forward-looking abilities. But since 2002, we've had DDR-enabled notebooks from other manufacturers while FSB has increased dramatically. The G4 processor does what it needs to do (I draw parallels between it and the P3-based Pentium M, which also works extremely well for what it does), but the bus speed and the memory system just choke on the large files pros need to manipulate. Regardless of Apple's history of lagging, they need to recognize that they held on to old technology too long and now it's hurting them. If the G4, like the Athlon, had scaled to faster bus speeds and full DDR, the G4 would still be competitive. Not embracing faster bus speeds would have killed AMD as Intel pulled ahead on clock speeds, and likewise it's given Motorola reason to fear for its future with Apple. Apple has the saving grace of not being in direct competition with any other manufacturer on the consumer PowerPC platform and the fact that the G4 is a sturdy performer, which allowed people to overlook its ignorance of changing trends and demands for a while. But they've pushed their luck too far, and they know it.

Now, to the main point for this post. There is no way that Apple could include 1GB of RAM on a single DIMM and drop prices any further. You can clearly see that prices for 1GB modules, though they've fallen, are still high. There is also no precedent for that amount of standard RAM. Most business-oriented notebooks from other vendors have a stock 256, with some offering 512 (almost always 2 DIMMs) standard. Apple's inclusion of a single-DIMM 512MB on the 15" and 17" models shows a strong commitment to maximizing performance with what they've got. They know the G4 can't be pushed any further, but they don't have an alternative ready. No amount of stretching reality can change that. What they can do, and have done, is upgrade the features that they can control and to drop prices. Could they have gone a bit cheaper? Yes. But then when the G5 is ready, they'd have to raise the prices again and deal with unrelenting negativity for not offering a 15" 1.8GHz G5 (or whatever it ends up being) for $1749 like its predecessor (following your wish for a further $250 cut).

As for hard drives, they've got about the largest capacity available. I've not seen 2.5" drives of more than 100GB. Yeah, there are 7200 RPM drives, but spinning faster means more power, which means less battery life, and people who want them can buy them and drop them in on their own. The resolution of the displays is not likely to change, either, as it would break Apple's 100dpi philosophy. I'd have liked to see a better video card, too, but they did make a few minor improvements, and the X800 wasn't ideal for the enclosure while the X700 wasn't available yet. The one thing that really bugs me about the updates is that I feel optical audio support should have extended to the entire line.

What they've done is satisfactory given their strangled hardware availability. When the next PowerBooks come, you can count on a new GPU, a new CPU, real DDR RAM, and hopefully an LCD panel with brighter colors, reduced pixel pitch, better viewing angles, and faster response (in other words, all around better, even if at the same resolution). I see it happening this year, because Tiger begs for a more powerful notebook showcase that supports all the features it has to offer, and because no one is going to accept the dead-horse G4 being dragged out another year. They've conveniently left the price points where they can transition easily and fortified the line with solid features and other components so that when they're ready, the redesigned shell with an all-new processing system can be the focus of the new models.

Until then, let's just all relax and accept that Apple did what they could do now, updating and adjusting prices, but in such a way that won't come back to haunt them when the new machines are ready. We all expect a further increase in standard features AND a G5/dual core G4/G30/Cell, all for the same price or less. This is not easy work, especially given the R&D costs involved in a project that has clearly taken longer than Apple anticipated. The updates are a definite improvement for cost/performance value, even if they are fairly unimpressive. I need more bus throughput and robust manipulation of large files for what I do, and many others do too. It will come, or we will make do with what is available when we can no longer wait. If the current PowerBooks don't meet your needs and you need to buy now, then you can either revise your needs or buy a PC notebook for the interim. Innovation doesn't always fit within our upgrade-cycle timeframes.

[mcgarry]

cemil, again, I don't disagree with you on the PC comparison, but that is really a separate issue from the within-the-Mac-line comparison that has sidetracked us. For while I agree with you from an ideal-world, everything-is-roses standpoint, I can't agree with you in whole because you seem unwilling to accept 3 facts:

- Mac laptops have almost always lagged behind the desktops, and 2 years is within normal range for a chip/major architecture shift
- portability always carries a $ premium
- 20% is not a huge price difference, for starters (ok, this is just an opinion, but you get the point by now)

In other words, your call for "more separation" is understandable, laudable, and agreeable ... but goes against everything we know about Macs. The current separation, and indeed the whole laptop line itself, is sitting right where one might reasonbly expect it to sit based on how Macs have always been, NOT based on where PCs are. That is a different discussion than talking about the price difference between an iBook and a PowerBook. In one discussion I agree with you, but in the other, you have to acknowledge the 3 facts above. And though they are tied together, discussing the relative price of an iBook has little to do with it.

Also, your proposed laptop lineup does not differ, i-to-P-wise, from the current one. Ultimately, again, I think you are conflating the issue of overall Mac laptop weakness-- however historically normal it is-- with what you said is an inadequate difference within the lineup. These are different discussions.

How do they update the iBook line? maybe they don't; sorry, that is not a "crisis." The buyer's guide is just that, a guide, it doesn't dictate Apple product decisions, and anyone who wants to read it as such will get burned sooner or later. Useful, yes, definitive or determinative, no. Not being able to bump the iBooks is not a crisis, because as you said consumers only need 500 MHz, right?

Still, we've made progress-- you agree that the i-P difference is not wildly divergent in the desktop vs. laptop realms, and you agree a DP PB is unreasonable at the moment. You're merely asking for a bone. Fair enough. Just give them a little more time, while thinking of all those poor souls who waited back in 1994, only to finally get ... the 5300 (I know all too well).

---

matticus008, nice post.

[cemil]

cemil, again, I don't disagree with you on the PC comparison, but that is really a separate issue from the within-the-Mac-line comparison that has sidetracked us. For while I agree with you from an ideal-world, everything-is-roses standpoint, I can't agree with you in whole because you seem unwilling to accept 3 facts:
-snip-
Still, we've made progress-- you agree that the i-P difference is not wildly divergent in the desktop vs. laptop realms, and you agree a DP PB is unreasonable at the moment. You're merely asking for a bone. Fair enough. Just give them a little more time, while thinking of all those poor souls who waited back in 1994, only to finally get ... the 5300 (I know all too well).

---

matticus008, nice post.

Mcgarry,

I'll concede your three points except for this: The G4 was already getting long in the tooth 2 years ago when it was upgraded in the desktop line.

Also, logically, I believe you are right. Apple has done the best they can, and I now agree that 20% is not unreasonable. I suppose my initial reaction was a gut reaction that the lines aren't separate enough. After your convincing, I agree that the i vs P difference is OK.

I'll just stick with my G4 FSB sucks line and go crawl back under my pBook :-).

Game, Set, Match to McGarry.

[devman]

To McGarry and Cemil

Wow! A civilised debate brought to a sensible close. Well done to both of you.

[propropro]

I feel sorry for those who bought this last rev PBG4, these people will kick themselves for not waiting for 6 more months. ;) :)

Maybe you don't think there is a lot of people that prefer a Rev. D PB G4 than a Rev. A PB G5. I'm talking about reliability. Or maybe I'm the only one that thinks that way :confused:

[ltgator333]

Keep in mind if I were looking for a laptop this would be my obvious first choice (a powerbook), but really who else is tired of seeing clock speed bumps on the same old tired 74xx core, and not to mention nothing spectacular for a chipset either? A lot of people I can bet on that.
It seems as though IBM has been kinda flat lately, with the exception of Cell. Freescale has been flat since conception... seems like this would be an opportune time for one or both of them to come out with something that makes you say 'wow'. Powerbooks have been missing that 'wow' for some time....

[GonzoRob]

I feel sorry for those who bought this last rev PBG4, these people will kick themselves for not waiting for 6 more months.

6 months! anyone who can put off buying a laptop that long doesnt really need one. As a full time journalist I needed something that was reliable, small and reasonably fast. A rev D powerbook was perfect .. i know its not going to screw up in the field and it'll last for ages.
Im looking forward to seeing the G5 PB's as much as the next guy .. but to wait *another* 6 months is just crazy ..
i'd advise anyone to buy one now - if you *have* to own a PBG5 sell it on ebay or something later on...
However, if you ask me the same question in 5 months time - my answer would be different .. then you should wait :)
Rob

PS: sorry, was a little bit of a troll :)

[CaptainCaveMann]

This is great news, it signals the END of the G4 on the PowerBook line. No dual core or G5, maybe a Cell PowerBook. ;) :)


I still cannot believe that the G4 is still in a "Power" line, this is crazy and for so long. I remember when the PBG3 last rev only have minimal bumps and 6 months later the PBG4 Ti was released. I suspect the same regardless of what Apple says. They have lied in the past and I do not think different otherwise of them now.

The G4 in a PB back then was also hot and got rotten battery life, yet they still released it. Apple will pull the same card once again and you can count on it. I feel sorry for those who bought this last rev PBG4, these people will kick themselves for not waiting for 6 more months. ;) :)

I bet the PB hardware dept is hanging they heads in shame for this craptacular release with the "Power" name, and also laughing that people are buying this crap. :p ;) :)Another 6 months??? How can you even say that with a streight face. Hahaha How long did the last revision take? And for what? A minor speed bump and a price drop? Oh yea scrolling track pad and hd lock? Woopidy doo! The fact is you have no way of backing up what you said. You have no clue how long it will be untill the next pb revision. Could it be 6 months from now? Yes. Could it be a year and a half from now? Well, from the looks of Apples recent puncuality, absolutely.

[mcgarry]

Mcgarry,

I'll concede your three points except for this: The G4 was already getting long in the tooth 2 years ago when it was upgraded in the desktop line.
...

Ahhh, the G4. Everyone's favorite chip. Even though it suits my needs just fine at the moment, I have to agree with you here on principle. It took, what, over 2 years for it to hit 1 GHz in the PMs, prompting the famous "megahertz myth" page at apple.com (it's no longer there, so if someone has it mirrored, please post the link). Thanks, Moto!

I'll just stick with my G4 FSB sucks line and go crawl back under my pBook :-).

True to my fanboy roots, if the PBs are still on a 167 MHz FSB come '06, I'll join you on the barricades.

But to me, the worst thing would be another 5300 on our hands, far worse than another 6 months of this. If we're waiting in order to ensure this next rev A dosn't work like a ... rev. A, well, I think that's not so bad.

[joshua_msu]

Another 6 months??? How can you even say that with a streight face. Hahaha How long did the last revision take? And for what? A minor speed bump and a price drop? Oh yea scrolling track pad and hd lock? Woopidy doo! The fact is you have no way of backing up what you said. You have no clue how long it will be untill the next pb revision. Could it be 6 months from now? Yes. Could it be a year and a half from now? Well, from the looks of Apples recent puncuality, absolutely.


Not only that, but once they do announce the new PB's, Apple is going to take months to make them readily available. Just look at how long the Rev. D's are taking to ship out.

Who is in charge here?

[shyataroo]

I think Apple Should release a 1.8Ghz G4 Dual Core PB but not announce that its a dual core until people run the tests.

[Dagless]

people complain about the PB range so much, this is my first personal mac and i'm loving it. its equally powered as my Gericom 3.06ghz P4 but with an extra 3 hours battery life. maybe you're all used to G5 shenanigans but for a first timer this machine has plenty of power. maybe it isnt super-powered, but its faster than an iBook.

[jaw04005]

Apple is at the mercy of the chip manufacturers here.

Actually it is Apple's fault for putting up with Moto for the past 6 years. The G4 has been plagued with problems since the beginning. Remember when it took almost 2 years to get the G4 from 500Mhz to 733Mhz, when Intel/AMD were pushing 1+Ghz? :mad: That is what it feels like now in the Powerbook line, although not as drastic.

Apple needs a new chip built from the ground up for mobile systems. The chip needs to come from someone who can deliver. Motorola can't deliver. They've had since 1999 to deliver, and have pretty much failed upon each incarnation. Apple needs a Centrino-like PowerPC chip.

Apparently, IBM is not having the best of luck either. With the G5 yield problems with the 90nm process. Apple's mobile lines might be the prettiest, feature some high-end features like FW800 and a back-lit keyboard, but they lack in pure performance and battery life.

[Nemesis]

Yes, the 15" offers features that the ibook doesn't. It is also $700 more than an ibook 14". Yes the Powerbook looks better, yes its a >bit< faster but is that worth $700?

YES! It's worth. Big time! Five minutes in front of a new PowerBook 15" or 17" will make you rethink your opinion. I have a 17" PowerBook @ 1.5 GHz, 1GB RAM and it's AWESOME machine. Excellent value for the money.

You can do just almost everything on it, and it works great. Programming, surfing, typing, Photoshop for web graphics and web page design -- works like charm. For all portable needs it just amazing piece of equipment. Astounding. Excellent sound, excellent graphics.

The only thing I miss in my Powerbook and that new revision has is the new DVD+/-RW 8x.

[Nemesis]

i will not buy a powerbook until the fsb is at least 533 for this very reason. i REALLY want one, but it wouldnt be a wise move on my part to buythis revision. while a rev a will have its issues, i work in audio and need the extra throughput for hard disc samplers and virtual instruments.

Uh, 533 Mhz have to be cooled down, my friend. And not to mention that such a machine would drain your batteries sooner.

It's so hard to design a good laptop machine. I'd never choose any PC laptop just because of the wonderful design ideas implemented in Powerbook and it's stunning 1" thickness.

For professional audio, desktop is still a way to go. Buy yourself a dual G5 and be happy.

[Surreal]

Uh, 533 Mhz have to be cooled down, my friend. And not to mention that such a machine would drain your batteries sooner.

It's so hard to design a good laptop machine. I'd never choose any PC laptop just because of the wonderful design ideas implemented in Powerbook and it's stunning 1" thickness.

For professional audio, desktop is still a way to go. Buy yourself a dual G5 and be happy.

it is hard to design. which is why i havent siad that it "should be out" or "apple is so bad" and 533 does have to be cooled, but this all ties into me disagreeing wiith your last point. a desktop is NOT the way to go for pro audio. not until you are INCREDIBLY well established at least.

i use reason and make songs. i could burn a n arrangement and perform to it, but the is not all that professional. the aspect of live performance that is desired gets killed.

i want to buy a MOTU HD896 and record small bands to pay bills and build chops. i live in NY and i cannot afford a studio. AND i will have to reord people on their gigs sometimes.

i simply said that it dos not make sense to buy in right NOW. i am going t wait till it is.

a G5 powermac would be a WONDERFUL thing to own but i still wouldnt be in a position to make money off of it. and seeing as i have to look at 3000 dollars as an investement because i am a student and that is MONTHS of money....not making money is not really an option.

[Travis Novak]

Wow....
I have never seen so may people complaning abouts better preformance and new features for less money.

It's a small upgrade...but it's still just that.... AN UPGRADE

[Flynnstone]

I little competition between IBM & Freescale would be nice.
Freescale (Motorola) hasn't done much to upgrade the G4. They're likely selling a ton to Apple for use in the Mac mini.
If Freescale came out with a G4 without a front side bus (FSB) per se, like AMD, we'd see some dramatic performance improvements.
So, Freescale, put the memory controller on chip. Put some life back into the G4!

[maxvamp]

Wow....
I have never seen so may people complaning abouts better preformance and new features for less money.

It's a small upgrade...but it's still just that.... AN UPGRADE


Then you have not been reading these forums long enough.

It does not matter whether Apple released a **very** minor update, or designs the ultimate in the fastest, newest, and most innovative designs. People here will bitch about something, and often about the new item not having a fictitious, or unrealistic feature or component. ( READ Dual Core mobile G5 ).

This is just par for the course and is part of what makes these forums entertaining.

Max.

[Jimong5]

the g4 is NOT worthwhile in it's current form. 200 mhz fronside bus? pc laptops have 533...then imac has 300 MIN and the g5 tower...oh my. these benchmarks show that they may be comparable. the benchmarks do NOT establish the simply scaling a G4 is all that needs to happen.

Front side busses have so many factors that can be misleading though. 200 MHz for a chip pushing 6 years old is actually pretty good (the bus is single rate, not quad pumped, so its not misleading). my dual 867 desktop handles most stuff I throw at it, and its only at 133 on the bus. The problem I think has to do with the lack of L3.

Take this about buses as an example with the pentium 4:
Intel's 800MHz FSB is actually a 200MHz FSB that is quad pumped.* A double pumped CPU can be thought as similar to DDR, which is able to access the memory two times per clock cycle.* Similarly, a quad pumped CPU is able to access the front-side bus four times per clock cycle.* Theoretically, the performance of using a quad-pumped bus should be four times that of a normal bus, but when other variables like latency are taken in account, the performance increase does not even reach double the theoretical speed.
http://www.techwarelabs.com/reviews/processors/intel_800mhz_fsb/

so that intel 533 bus is only really 133, with 4 accesses a cycle, but it will only preform at about a 167 level.

[John Rivers]

Hey I was interested in getting one of the newer 15" Powerbook G4s and had a few questions regarding them (am COMPLETELY new to mac and wanna join up soon) :).

Let's assume I get the 128 mb VRAM upgrade and also 1 GB of RAM...

Q #1: OK, so im planning on getting into film and music. Will the Powerbook G4 be able to run the apps I will likely be using most (Logic, FC Pro HD, various Adobe apps) pretty well?

Q #2: And how about Motion? Will I be able to lightly use Motion, or is this one of those apps that is just gonna HAVE to be used on a high end Powermac?

Q #3: Alot of the other "real world test" scores for the new Powerbooks use the included 512 MB or ram. How much faster will the Powerbook be with 1 GB?

Thanks a ton for everyone's help.

[oingoboingo]

Q #2: And how about Motion? Will I be able to lightly use Motion, or is this one of those apps that is just gonna HAVE to be used on a high end Powermac?

Specifically addressing this point, Barefeats ran a suite of Motion tests on a range of machines, including a 1.5GHz PowerBook with the 128MB Radeon 9700, 1.25GB RAM and a 5400rpm drive. The results are here:

http://barefeats.com/motion.html

It's a mixed bag of results. You'll have to decide for yourself if this type of performance is acceptable or not.

You should take a close look around the rest of the BareFeats site also. It isn't very well laid out, but there are plenty of tests which have been performed which include PowerBook models similar to the one which are thinking about ordering...especially this page:

http://barefeats.com/pb11.html

[JFreak]

except...when i run logic. or protools. or..well, i think you know what kind of applications i would say.

the g4 is NOT worthwhile in it's current form. 200 mhz fronside bus? pc laptops have 533...then imac has 300 MIN and the g5 tower...oh my. these benchmarks show that they may be comparable. the benchmarks do NOT establish the simply scaling a G4 is all that needs to happen.

as someone who wants to use my computer for pro level audio, i have to consider how a computer will run the latest versions of programs. a 3000 dollar computer should eat anything i can throw at it without a hiccough. powerbooks are not currently capable of that. i have tripped powerbooks up teaching garageband.

just two days ago i ran protools with my low-end G4@1.25GHz powerbook in a LIVE gig doing a front-of-house mix for a crowd of thousand people. i also provided monitor mixes for the band, and recorded the whole show. i took 17 inputs and provided 6 outputs, had cpu load at +75% and there was ZERO hiccups during the whole day. ten hours activity, zero seconds downtime.

my powerbook cannot "eat everything" i throw at it, but on the other hand, there just is not any other (portable or desktop) mac solution available that would be able to do that. so i have to accept there are certain limitations. guess what? that only forces me to make better decisions regarding the audio i am processing. not a bad deal ;)

if your powerbook cannot handle garageband, then there is something wrong with either your powerbook or apple's garageband.

[Surreal]

well, that was one way to find out how the powerbook runs strenuous audo work.

i think you replaied before to my question but it never clearedf up HOW well the powerbook handled recording many ins and outs.

and the only other issue is logic and virtual instruments. recording is a pretty steady affair, but how does you pb handle 4-5 large virual instruments. that was really when the G4s hurt in my opinion, recording is a smaller issue of through put but on an exs((24?) the biggest one) putting 2-3 puts visible strain on the cpu.

so, yes, i conceed that the powerbook can handle a great deal (and is fine for recording and monitoring) but can i program synths and samplers without freezing tracks. :) thanks for the input

o and i think the wholle garageband thing was ram. they didnt have it maxed out (wasnt my comp) but i am pretty sure with a bigger bus the ram would be used a little more efficiently(could be wrong. but that is my thinking based on what i understand the fsb to be).

[Demon Hunter]

Front side busses have so many factors that can be misleading though. 200 MHz for a chip pushing 6 years old is actually pretty good (the bus is single rate, not quad pumped, so its not misleading). my dual 867 desktop handles most stuff I throw at it, and its only at 133 on the bus. The problem I think has to do with the lack of L3.

Take this about buses as an example with the pentium 4:

http://www.techwarelabs.com/reviews/processors/intel_800mhz_fsb/

so that intel 533 bus is only really 133, with 4 accesses a cycle, but it will only preform at about a 167 level.

What exactly is quad-pumping? What's the advantage over single cycle? And is there a compelling reason why the G4 doesn't have quad-pumping, or is it just heat-related?

[cemil]

What exactly is quad-pumping? What's the advantage over single cycle? And is there a compelling reason why the G4 doesn't have quad-pumping, or is it just heat-related?

Dferrara,

Quad-pumping refers to using being able to transfer 4 pieces of data in one clock cycle. If you think of a clock cycle as a regular wave (up, down, up, down), normally data is transferred only on the up portions. Double-pumping (DDR) is able to burst and transfer on the down but ONLY in certain situations. Therefore, you do gain some speed when bursting data from RAM to CPU but not the theoretical max (x2). Quad pumping is very similar.

RE the G4 not having quad pumping - not sure, I'm guessing it would involve a mobo redesign, and I'm not sure that the chip could handle it either.

-Cemil

[sofla100]

I just bought the 15 inch G4 1.67 PB from Amazon and am very satisifed with it. Yes, I did seriously consider waiting for the "much hoped for" G5 powerbook. But, I don't think it will be out much before well into summer. The other issue, the G4 is probably near the end of its production time especially with the 1.67 gig now (vs the 1.5). So, I am confident the "kinks" are pretty well worked out. That is why I went with the little bit more expensive G4 vs discounted 1.5 gig G4's, although, I agree the 1.5's are a good deal if you don't have the $$$. Also, the SuperDrive on the 1.67's I think is an improvement. Finally, when the G5 does finally come out, you will have to deal with the fact that a few "kinks" will have to be worked out, so you will say to yourself I might as well wait (right?) till the end of the year, but, then we wil be pushing towards the "G-6'es," right. No matter what you do, technology will always escape you. But, no matter what, you cannot go wrong anyway when you buy a PB, G5 desktop, or any of Apple's latest creations really. When you have to work on PC's all day (and have XP suck the soul out of your body), its always a relief to come home to OS/X.

[Nemesis]

Q #1: OK, so im planning on getting into film and music. Will the Powerbook G4 be able to run the apps I will likely be using most (Logic, FC Pro HD, various Adobe apps) pretty well?

Q #2: And how about Motion? Will I be able to lightly use Motion, or is this one of those apps that is just gonna HAVE to be used on a high end Powermac?

Q #3: Alot of the other "real world test" scores for the new Powerbooks use the included 512 MB or ram. How much faster will the Powerbook be with 1 GB?

Thanks a ton for everyone's help.

1. It will be good machine for that. It depends how complex your projects are, but generally, FCP will be okay, and Photoshop too.

2. Motion is a new app, not yet quite optimised. But you can definitely use it. Same with GarageBand -- contrary to some people's opinion, GaragaBand 1 was NOT optimised at all. A junk piece of code. Even Logic Express performed MUCH better on the same machine -- you could do things GarageBand woudn't in a dream.

But GarageBand 2 is now much better.

3. Yes, increase of speed when putting in extra RAM is more than visible. 1 GB makes your Powerbook snappier and you can start enjoy working on it, and 2 GB makes it grrrreeeeat. 2 GB inside is the best you can do to boost application performance. It's worth every penny!

Plus, consider 17" Powerbook -- extra screen real estate and *definitely* cooler machine (it won't burn your knees as 15" PBook will) makes lots of difference!

[Evangelion]

I am a Mac newbie, but it seems like the lack of competition to produce processors may be affecting things... On the PC side, AMD and intel are in constant competition to make the latest and greatest processors

Well, not quite. First of all, Freescale competes with IBM. And second: Freescale (and IBM) compete with AMD and Intel! If Freescale starts to rest on their laurels and offer only mediocre chips, consumers will move to other products. In this case, Mac-users who want faster CPU's could buy a (*shock and horror!*) a PC-laptop instead.

Competition is there. Maybe not as in-your-face as with AMD and Intel, but it's definitely there.

I don't know, I know that there is a lot of PC hostility here, but let's face it, the competition to produce components DOES drive down costs and it forces innovation....

And there is competition in Mac-components as well. If Freescale can't deliver decent CPU's for Apple, you can bet that IBM would be more than willing to do so! If Hitachi can't deliver good HD's, Samsung or Seagate might.

[Evangelion]

BT 2.0? What devices support BT 2.0, pray tell?

So Apple should wait around untill there are devices to take advantage of BT2, before they will support BT2? Why not release compatible products NOW, so that their products would be ready for BT2, when such devices start appearing on the shelves? Would you be happy if you had some whiz-bang BT2-device, but you couldn't use it to it's full potential since your other hardware only supported older version of BT?

I will not be buying a new powerbook until FSB speeds are up to snuff.

Is the FSB really be-all end-all when it comes to performance? Why are G4 and G5 more or less equal clock-for-clock, even though G5 has ALOT faster bus?

[Lacero]

You definitely can feel a difference with a faster bus. Much smoother in multitasking. The processor may perform at the same speed but the information flows more freely. When doing several tasks at the same, the finder feels extremely smooth compared between a 900Mhz FSB vs a 167Mhz FSB.

[Evangelion]

Lets see:

Same resolution screen
slightly faster CPU
More RAM
Slightly better (faster, bigger) HD
Slightly better video card
BT
Yes, a few other small knick knacks.

Now, explain where the $500 difference is, except in keeping an artificial price difference to make it seem to the average consumer that the powerbook is better because it is more expensive.

Well, people have been raving about faster FSB. PB has faster FSB, yet all of a sudden it's only "slightly faster CPU". Granted, the difference is not huge (133Mhz vs. 166Mhz), but it's there. And the CPU itself is faster as well.

As to the price difference. Apart from the differences you mentioned (which do cost money you know). you get

- Aluminium case, instead of plastic
- Better keyboard (I have heard this on several sites/magazines)
- Ability to use the machine with the lid closed
- DVI-output instead of standard VGA
- Audio-in port
- Smaller size and weight
- Scrolling trackpad

In total, that extra $500 gives you

- Faster CPU
- Twice as much RAM
- Bigger and faster HD
- Faster vid-card
- Aluminium-case
- Better keyboard
- Lid-closed-operation
- DVI
- Audio-in
- Bluetooth (Wireless keyboards/mice....)
- Better trackpad
- Smaller size

I's that REALLY too little for extra $500? Depends of what you want from the machine. If you simply stare at CPU-specs or the like, then maybe 12" PB is not worth the extra money it requires. But you DO get quite alot for that money, IMO. And since many people are buying the 12" PB instead of the 12" iBook, they see the extra value it offers.

[sunilraman]

. Hell, it seems that a dual MDD PM is better than a single 1.6 G5!!

dude, i don't think so for CPU-intensive tasks like software synthesis. (MUSIC production) :D Exactly the same song i have in Reason, maxed out my 1.25 dualie MDD PM...

Same song, in 1.6ghz SINGLE PowerMac G5, handled the song like a f8cking champ... cpu was averaging 15-20% (the Reason CPU meter), didn't even break a sweat.

A dualie 2 ghz PowerMac G5, 1 GB Ram, 7400rpm HD, you are f8cking flying my main man, you won't even toss a glance at a G4 anymore.... Only it is BIG, a bit hard to move around :cool:

[sunilraman]

I just bought the 15 inch G4 1.67 PB from Amazon and am very satisifed with it. Yes, I did seriously consider waiting for the "much hoped for" G5 powerbook. But, I don't think it will be out much before well into summer. The other issue, the G4 is probably near the end of its production time especially with the 1.67 gig now (vs the 1.5). So, I am confident the "kinks" are pretty well worked out. That is why I went with the little bit more expensive G4 vs discounted 1.5 gig G4's, although, I agree the 1.5's are a good deal if you don't have the $$$. Also, the SuperDrive on the 1.67's I think is an improvement. Finally, when the G5 does finally come out, you will have to deal with the fact that a few "kinks" will have to be worked out, so you will say to yourself I might as well wait (right?) till the end of the year, but, then we wil be pushing towards the "G-6'es," right. No matter what you do, technology will always escape you. But, no matter what, you cannot go wrong anyway when you buy a PB, G5 desktop, or any of Apple's latest creations really. When you have to work on PC's all day (and have XP suck the soul out of your body), its always a relief to come home to OS/X.


well said. especially re: refilling your soul after XP soul-sucking

[JFreak]

i think you replaied before to my question but it never clearedf up HOW well the powerbook handled recording many ins and outs.

very well :) i'm not complaining about performance but rather would want digidesign to introduce such LE hardware that would allow bigger simultaneous i/o counts than 18. it would be great to be able to record all those 32 voices at once... without jumping to TDM systems, that is ;)

the only other issue is logic and virtual instruments. how does you pb handle 4-5 large virual instruments. can i program synths and samplers without freezing tracks. :) thanks for the input

i don't do virtual instruments and don't use logic, so i cannot comment on this one with personal experience; however, my friend uses my previous powerbook (667MHz) and can use two atmosphere instances simultaneously, if that information is of any help.

i am pretty sure with a bigger bus the ram would be used a little more efficiently(could be wrong. but that is my thinking based on what i understand the fsb to be).

if you can stress the cpu to very high levels (+85%) for very long periods of time (one minute is forever for a cpu), then you can clearly prove that the FSB of the system is sufficient. the cpu cannot keep up if it cannot pump data to and fetch it back from memory. if it can, that is enough.

the on-die cache is also something that cannot be overlooked when this issue is discussed; many times it is of greater importance that the cpu has large cache compared to a great FSB, because cpu will always first store data where it "costs" less to re-use it. just think about it: what does the cpu use RAM for? for storing data that cannot fit in its registers (primary data storage) or on-die cache (secondary data storage). only after those resources are already maxxed out, the system will store its data to RAM. and, ideally, either the on-die cache should be so large that ram would be unnecessary, or that accessing ram would be as fast as accessing on-die cache.

oh well, enough tech-talk. back to music ;)

[Demon Hunter]

And there is competition in Mac-components as well. If Freescale can't deliver decent CPU's for Apple, you can bet that IBM would be more than willing to do so! If Hitachi can't deliver good HD's, Samsung or Seagate might.

I think he was refering more to the fact that OS X only runs on Apple's machines. Yeah, there's competition to get the components inside of the machines, but not directly with other computer makers.

Of course it's important that Macs perform as well as their PC counterparts. Apple knows this well. However, because Macs offer so much more in addition to normal computing such as an attractive GUI, friendly applications and a largely troublefree user experience, performance is sometimes given second priority. And this works, because Apple's market base is willing to make the sacrifice. This is nothing new.

If you talked to a graphics designer in 1989, they wouldn't complain that their Macintosh Portable was rendering files in Photoshop too slowly. It increased their productivity -- that was the point. But as industries like graphics design change, Apple needs to keep up or risk losing this edge.

Because as Apple's market base continues to expand into areas that require extreme performance -- the sciences, research, film -- it becomes mission critical to choose the right chip maker.

Performance can't slide like it used to, or Apple could lose these segments.

If the people who needed faster laptops haven't switched already, they must be coming close?

EDIT: I'm Ron Burgundy? :p

[intlplby]

i think the deciding factor on whether or not it is worth upgrading now or not really depends on what you currently have....

if you have a 1.33 or a 1.5 powerbook and want to upgrade already of course you are going to be disappointed.....

i for one can't wait for the the next big powerbig update either, but i would also love to have a 17" in 1.67 to replace my 12" 1.0

i guess it's all relative isn't it......

[Eastend]

i think the deciding factor on whether or not it is worth upgrading now or not really depends on what you currently have....

if you have a 1.33 or a 1.5 powerbook and want to upgrade already of course you are going to be disappointed.....

i for one can't wait for the the next big powerbig update either, but i would also love to have a 17" in 1.67 to replace my 12" 1.0

i guess it's all relative isn't it......
Very Good. I think you hit the nail right on the head. Actually I thought this update was only going to be about a 4 per cent increase, they fooled me. I believe the benchmarks are over 7 closer to a 9 per cent increase, it's really not that bad. However, it was not good enough for me personally, but that should not stop anyone else needing a PowerBook from buying one.

Brian

[risc]

Not that I believe XBench here are the results from my PowerBook G4 1.67 GHz 15" http://ladd.dyndns.org/xbench/merge.xhtml?doc2=98908 - I dunno what to think when I compare it to the scores of the iMac G5 1.6.

Best notebook I've ever owned, and imho it's damn fast for what I do!

[Sundance Kid]

Well, I too am stuck between the 1.5Ghz and the 1.67Ghz model with the 128 graphics card. I mean if i'm going to be playing game on it should i go for the more expensive model? I'm not going to be upgrading my computer for at least 3 or 4 years after i buy it (i might do the ram though). Since i live in Canada, it will cost me 500$ to upgrade for the 1.5Ghz to the 1.67Ghz and the 128mb card. Is it really worth it? I hear there is almost no difference between the 1.5Ghz model and the 1.67Ghz model, but does the graphics card actually improve the computer by half?

Thanks for the help,

The Sundance Kid

[ShnikeJSB]

I currently own an '01 15.2" TiBook G4/667, and I have been waiting for Apple to significantly improve their 'books enough to replace it, but it has yet to happen. I am looking forward to some things to truly make it worthwhile. Here are the things I hope are to be introduced by the end of summer (if they are, I am 110% ready to get a new 15" PowerBook):

Processor: 90nm 1.8-2.0GHz Freescale 7448, with its faster 200MHz bus and 1MB cache. It has been said before, and I will say it again: the 7447x sucks, and needs to be replaced! Dual-core would be nice, but this is but a pipe dream for another year MINIMUM. Plus, I still believe G5's won't make the cut for a PB.

Screen: A move to 15.4" TRUE Widescreen (none of this 15.2" bull), brighter with a better viewing angle, and WSXGA+ resolution - 1680 x 1050. Our screens are an utter EMBARRASSMENT compared to Wintel offerings.

Graphics: A move to PCI-X (or PCI Express). Since the X800 Mobility is too hot/large, it is pretty much out of the question. BUT, get rid of the Mobility 9700, and throw in an X700 Mobility or Geforce 6600 GO with 128-256 megs graphics RAM. They are plenty cool and use nearly as much power as the current Mobility 9700, yet are much faster (up to 2x faster in Windows benchies).

Hard drives: Offer 7200 RPM drives. Plain and simple. I could live with some extra heat/noise for the increased performance.

RAM: Move away from DDR333, and get on over to DDR400 already! Or maybe even make the leap to DDR2-533. Hell, if they can get PCI-X in, they could do this! Latency on DDR2 has gone down dramatically as of late.

OS: Mac OS X 10.4 "Tiger" pre-installed.

Battery: A battery using this new technology I JUST read about a couple days ago (but can't remember where), that makes the batteriescheaper to make, last much longer, and recharge much quicker. I wish I could remember where I read this, maybe on Geek.com?

That is basically what I am looking for, and hope to GOD to see these improvements (OR BETTER!) in the next revision. Here's to hoping! -JB

[BigDogg]

Yes, this update did not improve the line tremendously, neverless the line was improved though.I will probably wait until the line is updated one more time before I make the purchase of a PB.I just jope they do not change the minimalist styling of which I am a big fan.

[Eastend]

Not that I believe XBench here are the results from my PowerBook G4 1.67 GHz 15" http://ladd.dyndns.org/xbench/merge.xhtml?doc2=98908 - I dunno what to think when I compare it to the scores of the iMac G5 1.6.

Best notebook I've ever owned, and imho it's damn fast for what I do!

Does anyone have the benchmarks for the new PowerBook using a Firewire 800 drive, like LaCie's Big Disk Extreme? I'd just bet the scores would improve using a Firewire 800 drive, at least somewhat. On a Dual 2.5 G5 I get over 250 benchmark using the internal drive, using the Big Disk Extreme I get 238, but on a PowerBook this might be reversed due to the slower internal drive. The scores might beat the low end iMac with the Big Disk Extreme hooked up to the Firewire 800 as a startup drive on a new PowerBook. Anyway it is Interesting that the Benchmarks of the new PowerBook are so close to the low end iMac anyway.

Brian

[cosmos]

Wow....
I have never seen so may people complaning abouts better preformance and new features for less money.

It's a small upgrade...but it's still just that.... AN UPGRADE
Hey, I could have waited until Apple released the upcoming G9, but I needed: a 17 inch laptop for upcoming consulting work. I am coming from a G3 400MHz iMac. Even though it has 512MB and an upgraded 8MB cache drive, the new machine is still very superior.

Yes, you can have faster performance in many other machines, but I could not find a better machine for what I needed. I was not about to pay the 'bend over' prices for Apple memory, but I ordered Samsung OEM memory for less than half of what Apple wanted.

I got what I needed in a cool machine. Yes, I could have waited, but how long do you want to wait for the 'latest and greatest?'

No matter what you wait for, you will always find that if you only waited a little longer, you would have been able to have purchased the new toy.

[Flyinace2000]

No matter what you wait for, you will always find that if you only waited a little longer, you would have been able to have purchased the new toy.

Exactly! Hence my new powerbook

[Demon Hunter]

I currently own an '01 15.2" TiBook G4/667, and I have been waiting for Apple to significantly improve their 'books enough to replace it, but it has yet to happen. I am looking forward to some things to truly make it worthwhile. Here are the things I hope are to be introduced by the end of summer (if they are, I am 110% ready to get a new 15" PowerBook):

Processor: 90nm 1.8-2.0GHz Freescale 7448, with its faster 200MHz bus and 1MB cache. It has been said before, and I will say it again: the 7447x sucks, and needs to be replaced! Dual-core would be nice, but this is but a pipe dream for another year MINIMUM. Plus, I still believe G5's won't make the cut for a PB.

Screen: A move to 15.4" TRUE Widescreen (none of this 15.2" bull), brighter with a better viewing angle, and WSXGA+ resolution - 1680 x 1050. Our screens are an utter EMBARRASSMENT compared to Wintel offerings.

Graphics: A move to PCI-X (or PCI Express). Since the X800 Mobility is too hot/large, it is pretty much out of the question. BUT, get rid of the Mobility 9700, and throw in an X700 Mobility or Geforce 6600 GO with 128-256 megs graphics RAM. They are plenty cool and use nearly as much power as the current Mobility 9700, yet are much faster (up to 2x faster in Windows benchies).

Hard drives: Offer 7200 RPM drives. Plain and simple. I could live with some extra heat/noise for the increased performance.

RAM: Move away from DDR333, and get on over to DDR400 already! Or maybe even make the leap to DDR2-533. Hell, if they can get PCI-X in, they could do this! Latency on DDR2 has gone down dramatically as of late.

OS: Mac OS X 10.4 "Tiger" pre-installed.

Battery: A battery using this new technology I JUST read about a couple days ago (but can't remember where), that makes the batteriescheaper to make, last much longer, and recharge much quicker. I wish I could remember where I read this, maybe on Geek.com?

That is basically what I am looking for, and hope to GOD to see these improvements (OR BETTER!) in the next revision. Here's to hoping! -JB

While I can sympathize with some of your hopes, that sounds a lot like a loud, hot, thick and unstable Windows laptop.

In regards to the processor, the 7447A is hardly weak, but a 200MHz FSB would be nice. That's the only thing that would justify DDR400, since it's usually twice the bus speed (so the current Powerbook has an effective memory bus of 333Mhz, or 2x 167).

True widescreen on the 15" would give the 17" less impact... it would be nice to see a 13" though! And many people, including myself do not want WSXGA screens... yeah, they're gorgeous, but they also use more power and hurt your eyes. :p

And the benefits of 7200 rpm drives and higher speed memory just aren't there. It's negligible to say the least. Until the new Freescale G4+ is out, the higher bandwith is even more meaningless, since the current G4 saps all of it.