15 inch Aluminum PowerBook Soon

[ddtlm]

There sure is a lot of wild speculation going on here. People need to step back and look at things realistically. If it is released anytime soon, it is very likely that the 15" AluBook will be a G4 toping out not far above the current 1.0ghz because of the twin problems of heat and the 1.0ghz G4 in th 17" AluBook. In fact I think that the fact Apple launched the 17" machine with a 1.0ghz chip demonstrates that they did not see the 15" model getting anything faster than that for the entire lifespan of the current 17" model... probably 6 months. The 17" would have been able to cool a faster chip better than a 15", and a faster chip would not have been out of line given the high-end positioning. Yet Apple didn't take the chance to do this, and now they are in a situtation where any upgrade to the 15" model risks embarrasing the 17" model, or alternatively, risks embarrasing Apple as the 2nd laptop upgrade in a row not to make any meaningful performance headway. I think this means that Apple was not and is not planning a new 15" AluBook for several months still. As far as the other components of a 15" AluBook, the chipset, graphics, motherboard and most features would probably be very similar to the 17" AluBook because thats good for Apple's bottom line.

There will be no 970 because there is no reason to believe that it will be available any time within the next few months. Also, a 970 would either mean that the 17" AluBook is obsolete or that a new 17" AluBook would arrive at the same time, niether of which is likely given the very short lifespan of the 17" so far. Apple just can't afford to launch things, ship them months late, and then all the sudden cancel them for something radically faster, as a 970 laptop would be.

If a 15" AluBook shows up any time soon I expect very minimal actual progress.

 

[nickgold]

Originally posted by eric_n_dfw
Hehe - after reading that I had the horible thought of Apple putting out a 970 based machine with the current bus architecture! (Effectively crippling the 970)

NOOOOO!!!

Heheh more like....

Yikes?!?!!!!

(Sorry, Yikes owners!)

-Sawtooth owner

 

[AllenPSU]

Price!

I hope this includes a price drop.

 

[herr_neumann]

Forgive my bluntness as this is my first post.

Why does everyone assume that apple cares about pissing off the people that just bought a 17? Early adopters always pay a premium. They did not care about pissing me off when I bought my ibook 14" 700. A month later the released the 800 and droped the price. The 14 is now very much cheaper than when I bought mine.

Now who says they wont utilize the same motherboard on the 15 and 17. They can then kill the ibook having the 12 fill it's role. Or, work something out with ibm as part of the contract for buying 970s in huge numbers, to get really really cheap/fast G3s. This would make the ibook compete in the sub $900 market. They can then keep the pricing structure the same for the PB having the screen size be the difference between the 15 & 17. If they use the same motherboard this lowers prooduction cost on the units.

I am probably wrong, but, it does make more sense from a buisness prospective. Apple wants market share. How to do this? Lower cost, increase revenue, increase advertisements, increase Gov't/School usage and build a better server. A quad processor xserve with clusterablity will make it better for buisnesses, especially if it lowers matainence costs. With a mac smaller companies can have their servers without the techies, making the xserve an even better value thereby increasing market share.

Like I said dont mean to offend. On another note, i have been reading macrumors for ~2 months and am glad to have actually registered and posted..... hopefully my thoughts pan out.

 

[ktlx]

Originally posted by eric_n_dfw
Hehe - after reading that I had the horible thought of Apple putting out a 970 based machine with the current bus architecture! (Effectively crippling the 970)

How could they do that? The FSB on the G4 and 970 are so completely different, it would be impossible to share without developing a bridge chip. The only purpose of that chip would be to increase cost, increase power utilization, increase system complexity, decrease reliability and decrease performance.

It would be considerably cheaper to just create a new chipset even if IBM did not provide one.

Someone will need to develop a new chipset anyway because the PowerPC 970 is going to require either a dual channel DDR or RDRAM set up in order to feed it. A single channel DDR set up won't cut it with a 900Mhz bus and no L3 cache.

 

[The Shadow]

Welcome aboard. Like you, I've been a reader for ages, and decided recently I wanted to contribute. Don't worry about offending anyone by simply having a different opinion.

Originally posted by herr_neumann
Why does everyone assume that apple cares about pissing off the people that just bought a 17? Early adopters always pay a premium.

Now who says they wont utilize the same motherboard on the 15 and 17. They can then kill the ibook having the 12 fill it's role. Or, work something out with ibm as part of the contract for buying 970s in huge numbers, to get really really cheap/fast G3s. This would make the ibook compete in the sub $900 market.

Like you, I agree Apple cannot not afford to worry about offendingn early adopters by bringing out newer and better products at a rapid rate. In any case, like any product people order, you take a risk when you don't buy from current stock. If you don't like it, don't take the risk.

Having said that, like a few earlier posts, I can't see anything too radical coming if the new PB comes out soon - it'll merely be brought into line with the 12" and 17".

It won't have a PPC970, if posts about this chip in other threads are correct, because the OS hasn't been fine tuned yet. So, from what I've read we can't get a 970 before we get Panther - and we know Panther will be shown off at end of June.

And don't worry, Apple won't have any immediate plans to dump the iBook - unless Apple can completely change it's business model for the PB and drastically reduce their price. Apple sells a lot of iBooks, because their cheap. As you pointed out, that's important!

 

[ddtlm]

ktlx:

A single channel DDR set up won't cut it with a 900Mhz bus and no L3 cache.

Why does everyone assume that Apple is going to use the maximum FSB, or even if they do, that they will use it on all the systems?

 

[reflex]

Let's talk dates. I say April 29th or 30th. Why ? Because that's around the time the Powerbook was updated last year. With new iBooks to follow about a month later

 

[pdickins]

screen resolution

It's patently obvious that increased screen resolution is a good thing - no matter what sort of digital media people use there is no substitute for higher resolutions be they audio or visual. There is no excuse to limit resolutions due to small indeciferable text - in the Mac OS X Finder you can change Text and Icon size from 10-16pt and 16x16-128x128 in View/Show View Options. People like the 15" and 17" PB's, 17" iMac and Cinema Displays because of the extra working space they have on their desktops. I'd certainly trade the 22" Cinema display I have at work for the 23" Cinema HD display if I could.

 

[Sun Baked]

Amazing, we know the replacement for the TiBook is coming soon -- possibly May/June.

Hopefully Steve doesn't hold it back so he can trot it out during WWDC.

But to get the rumor twisted to the point people believe the PB 15 wasn't released was so it could have a PPC 970 slapped in it, is a bit strange -- when an easier explanation is that it was part of Apple keep OS 9 alive strategy.

Of course the Easter Bunny is going to be busy this year.

 

[ktlx]

Originally posted by ddtlm
Why does everyone assume that Apple is going to use the maximum FSB, or even if they do, that they will use it on all the systems?

I don't see where I make that assumption anywhere.

According to the media reports about the PowerPC 970, the 1.8Ghz version uses a 900Mhz FSB. I have not see any indication that it can use a slower one and I have never seen a CPU made that provided more than two choices for a FSB speed at a single speed. Typically those differences are no more than 25%.

The slowest FSB claim I have seen is 600Mhz for 1.2Ghz part. This would still require either a dual channel DDR or RDRAM set up to work best although it is close enough that DDR400 wouldn't be too bad.

The only assumption that I make is that Apple will try to match its chipset to memory bandwidth and chipset to CPU bandwidth as much as possible. Given the size of the PowerPC 970's pipe, that really implies a dual channel DDR selection although Apple could go with an RDRAM set up.

 

[Latino]

Re: Re: Justification, shmushtification!

quote:Originally posted by pyrotoaster
I'm actually beginning to wonder if Apple will skip the G4 alltogether in the iBook and go straight to low-speed 970s.

Originally posted by Death2PCs
Ha ha... you wish.

Well, it may not be that silly an idea after all. Think about it for a second.

When/if apple releases a mac with a 970, they will try to use the 64bit feature as a marketing bonanza. To go with it, they will have to release a 64bit version of OS X. When Apple does this, it would make a lot of sense to move every computer in their lineup to be 64bit machines as soon as possible, because otherwise, they would have to support two OSs, a 64bit version and a 32bit version, which would cost $$.

There are also the developers for the Mac platform. They would, most likely, not start developing 64bit applications until the 64bit use base was large enough. Moreover, many of these developers would not want to have to support two versions of their software, but at the same time, I'm sure they would love to be able to have a 64bit compatible label on their products, if only as a marketing gimmik.

I don't have any figures, but I wouldn't be surprised if Apple sold a lot of ibooks compared with powerbooks and powermacs. So ibook users probably make up for a big chunk of users.

Now if Apple had an entire lineup consisting of 64bit computers, they could shift development to a 64bit version of OS X, and developers could move to 64 bits without worrying about 32 bits (once the userbase was large enough that is).

Of course, apple will have to release 64bit and 32bit versions of OS X for a while, or those of us with 32bit machines would be rather pissed off otherwise.

Apple could cripple an ibook with a 970 badly enough so as to still have separation between a pro line and the consumer line. Think reduced clock speed, reduced memory bandwidth (970fsb is 900Mhz but memory bandwidth could be far less), mediocre video, etc... But it would still be a 64bit machine, capable of running a 64bit OS X and 64bit applications.

This means that a while after the release of this new lineup of computers, (one year? two?), there would be a considerable 64bit enabled userbase. Those who didn't have a 64bit mac would have had their machines for a while, and it would be reasonable to drop OS X 32bit and concentrate on 64bit

Still, I don't think we'll see a 970 in a mac soon. My guess is that they'll first appear on the XServes, and slowly will trickle down to the rest of the lineup. Since 970 is not slated for mass production until September, I would say Sep/Oct for XServer 970, and probably Dec/Jan for the rest (Powermac, powerbook, may be imac...)

Now, the interesting thing is, will upgrade card companies be able to do some black magic, and produce an upgrade card with a PPC 970 for current G4 owners? What holds me from getting a mac is that soon enough, 970s will appear, which would lead me with a 32bit box unable to run 64bit OS X when it appears....

Anyway, this is my first post in this forum, so don't be too harsh on me.

Latino

 

[NicoMan]

Originally posted by Sun Baked
Amazing, we know the replacement for the TiBook is coming soon -- possibly May/June.

Hopefully Steve doesn't hold it back so he can trot it out during WWDC.

But to get the rumor twisted to the point people believe the PB 15 wasn't released was so it could have a PPC 970 slapped in it, is a bit strange -- when an easier explanation is that it was part of Apple keep OS 9 alive strategy.

Of course the Easter Bunny is going to be busy this year.

Even if I would love to see a 970 soon in a Mac, i don't think the soon to be released 15" will feature that chip. I think everyone has forgotten about the 7457. Now I know what you guys are saying: not another G4. Well for one the mobo redesign would be minimal (take the 17" and make a smaller one) and the heat/battery life is dealt with. Now a month or so later they update the chips in the 12" and 17" with 7447s and 7457s and maybe a new graphics chip or something. Here you go. Job done until the official announcement of the 970 (august ??).

NicoMan

 

[jamilecrire]

Re: Re: Re: Justification, shmushtification!

Originally posted by Latino
Well, it may not be that silly an idea after all. Think about it for a second.

When/if apple releases a mac with a 970, they will try to use the 64bit feature as a marketing bonanza. To go with it, they will have to release a 64bit version of OS X. When Apple does this, it would make a lot of sense to move every computer in their lineup to be 64bit machines as soon as possible, because otherwise, they would have to support two OSs, a 64bit version and a 32bit version, which would cost $$.

There are also the developers for the Mac platform. They would, most likely, not start developing 64bit applications until the 64bit use base was large enough. Moreover, many of these developers would not want to have to support two versions of their software, but at the same time, I'm sure they would love to be able to have a 64bit compatible label on their products, if only as a marketing gimmik.

I don't have any figures, but I wouldn't be surprised if Apple sold a lot of ibooks compared with powerbooks and powermacs. So ibook users probably make up for a big chunk of users.

Now if Apple had an entire lineup consisting of 64bit computers, they could shift development to a 64bit version of OS X, and developers could move to 64 bits without worrying about 32 bits (once the userbase was large enough that is).

Of course, apple will have to release 64bit and 32bit versions of OS X for a while, or those of us with 32bit machines would be rather pissed off otherwise.

Apple could cripple an ibook with a 970 badly enough so as to still have separation between a pro line and the consumer line. Think reduced clock speed, reduced memory bandwidth (970fsb is 900Mhz but memory bandwidth could be far less), mediocre video, etc... But it would still be a 64bit machine, capable of running a 64bit OS X and 64bit applications.

This means that a while after the release of this new lineup of computers, (one year? two?), there would be a considerable 64bit enabled userbase. Those who didn't have a 64bit mac would have had their machines for a while, and it would be reasonable to drop OS X 32bit and concentrate on 64bit

Still, I don't think we'll see a 970 in a mac soon. My guess is that they'll first appear on the XServes, and slowly will trickle down to the rest of the lineup. Since 970 is not slated for mass production until September, I would say Sep/Oct for XServer 970, and probably Dec/Jan for the rest (Powermac, powerbook, may be imac...)

Now, the interesting thing is, will upgrade card companies be able to do some black magic, and produce an upgrade card with a PPC 970 for current G4 owners? What holds me from getting a mac is that soon enough, 970s will appear, which would lead me with a 32bit box unable to run 64bit OS X when it appears....

Anyway, this is my first post in this forum, so don't be too harsh on me.

Latino

The thing you're missing is the 64bit 970 would be binary compatable with the 32bit G3/4. This was in the initial design of the G series processors. It's like the SPARC processors in the Sun/Solaris world. Everyone that built server apps (internal) would migrate to bigger hardware but their 32bit apps would run without recompilation on the newer 64bit processors.

If you're the head of a company that has been developing internal apps for the last 4 years and two new platforms come out. One that works with your existing code and one that doesn't, which would you choose (reprogramming is very expensive)?

This is the flop that Intel introduced to the market the Itanium (Itanic as most are calling it). AMD and Apple have an excellent opportunity like they will possibly never get again. Don't F* this up Jobs.

 

[NicoMan]

Re: Re: Re: Justification, shmushtification!

Originally posted by Latino
Now, the interesting thing is, will upgrade card companies be able to do some black magic, and produce an upgrade card with a PPC 970 for current G4 owners? What holds me from getting a mac is that soon enough, 970s will appear, which would lead me with a 32bit box unable to run 64bit OS X when it appears....

Anyway, this is my first post in this forum, so don't be too harsh on me.

Latino

I don't think the transition from 32bits to 64bits will be "just like that". The 970 is supposed to be able to run 32bits code so when it is released I don't see Apple forcing developpers toward producing 64bit code. They will educate developper to produce 970-friendly 32bits code at first. After all the majority of machines will be running on G3s and G4s...
I don't know but I see people holding off buying a new machine because of the 970, and it doesn't make sense to me. For one the PowerMac (the way it is today) is a design tried and tested and unless you do massively CPU-intensive tasks, a dual 1.25 today will take everything you throw at it, and with ease. If you need a new mac for your job or money-making trade, get it now. When the 970 comes out, it will suffer from a few quirks/problems that all first series suffer from. And that's some time away from now.

My 2 cents....

NicoMan

 

[Latino]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Justification, shmushtification!

Originally posted by NicoMan
I don't think the transition from 32bits to 64bits will be "just like that". The 970 is supposed to be able to run 32bits code so when it is released I don't see Apple forcing developpers toward producing 64bit code. They will educate developper to produce 970-friendly 32bits code at first. After all the majority of machines will be running on G3s and G4s...

I don't think apple will force developers to 64bits. However, I can see apple releasing a new 64bit OS X, say, a year after the introduction of the 970. It could be 10.4.x, and they could not release a 32bit version of it. That means that everyone who hadn't bought a new mac in the previous year would have to upgrade.

Now, Apple is a business, like any other. And they must make money to survive. Forcing users to move to 64bit machines to run the latest software would bring in revenue from users upgrading machines. They did it when OS X was released (old macs not supported), and I think they could easily do it again.

I don't know but I see people holding off buying a new machine because of the 970, and it doesn't make sense to me. For one the PowerMac (the way it is today) is a design tried and tested and unless you do massively CPU-intensive tasks, a dual 1.25 today will take everything you throw at it, and with ease. If you need a new mac for your job or money-making trade, get it now. When the 970 comes out, it will suffer from a few quirks/problems that all first series suffer from. And that's some time away from now.

There is a lot of truth in what you say. However, if I bought a dual 1.25 today, I would expect to use it for about three years at least. Now, if Apple releases a 64bit only OS X in a year and a half, I would be left in the dust. If I knew I could buy an upgrade card with a 970 in it to use the new OS, I would probably get a powermac now (although the slow memory bandwith would be a big issue)

I don't need the performance of the 970, so that's not my reason. I want something that will be future proof, somewhat.

Latino

 

[ddtlm]

ktlx:

According to the media reports about the PowerPC 970, the 1.8Ghz version uses a 900Mhz FSB.

The FSB can probably run at any fraction of the core speed that the computer maker chooses. It does not appear that 900mhz for the 1.8ghz chip is a set rule by any means.

NicoMan:

It seems the 7457 will take longer to ship than the 970. Other than that it is a natural choice for Apple, and probably no changes would need to be made to the laptops to use it (there would be no need for a mobo redesign).

 

[NicoMan]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Justification, shmushtification!

Originally posted by Latino
I don't think apple will force developers to 64bits. However, I can see apple releasing a new 64bit OS X, say, a year after the introduction of the 970. It could be 10.4.x, and they could not release a 32bit version of it. That means that everyone who hadn't bought a new mac in the previous year would have to upgrade.

Now, Apple is a business, like any other. And they must make money to survive. Forcing users to move to 64bit machines to run the latest software would bring in revenue from users upgrading machines. They did it when OS X was released (old macs not supported), and I think they could easily do it again.



There is a lot of truth in what you say. However, if I bought a dual 1.25 today, I would expect to use it for about three years at least. Now, if Apple releases a 64bit only OS X in a year and a half, I would be left in the dust. If I knew I could buy an upgrade card with a 970 in it to use the new OS, I would probably get a powermac now (although the slow memory bandwith would be a big issue)

I don't need the performance of the 970, so that's not my reason. I want something that will be future proof, somewhat.

Latino

A 64bit only OSX, I don't buy it. That is WAY too close to the OS9-OSX transition. And the Apple followers will still be traumatized by it in 2 to 3 years. No you will still be able to get the latest software for 32bits machine in 3, 4 years. It's just that some of the apps will be able to run optimized for a 64 bit chips (the same way that some apps can autosense a G4 and make use of Altivec. But it doesn't mean they don't run on a G3...). I think if you get a dual 1.25 you are somewhat future-proof (at least 2 years...).
But hey that is a very personal opinion.

NicoMan

 

[blueflame]

i for one think that if apple does release a new 64 bit OS it will have to be a while down the road. I mean, they just barely released a truely workable version of X. Also, just curious, is it a fact the apple is even going to use the 970, or is that also a rumor, bucasue im gettin the sense that this is a rumor inside of a rumor.
~Blue

 

[ktlx]

Originally posted by ddtlm
The FSB can probably run at any fraction of the core speed that the computer maker chooses. It does not appear that 900mhz for the 1.8ghz chip is a set rule by any means.

Could you point to a link that says this? So far I have not seen this in any article I have read about the PowerPC 970.

In fact, I have seen just the opposite in the two articles that are specific. Both have said the bus is locked at 1/2 the core frequency. These are from ArsTechnica and a Real World Technologies article pointed it.

No other CPU, that I am aware of, allows the computer manufacturer to set the speed of the FSB. They are always fixed by the processor manufacturer. In fact, Intel is the only one I am aware of that has given the choice of two FSB speeds for a single core frequeny and that only happened where the 100/133Mhz and 400/533Mhz multipliers happened to coincide.

 

[idkew]

Originally posted by Snowy_River
Tell me, idkew, do you have some inside information? Or are you just stating your opinion as a fact? So far as I'm aware, most (if not all) people who are commenting here are simply stating opinions. None of us has the true information on what it will or won't be, or when it will be, for that matter.

So, call me a dreamer, say I'm silly stupid for thinking that it might be possible, but, unless you'd care to share a reliable source for your information, please don't assert that it's impossible when you don't know any better than the rest of us...

[I am a dreamer, but sometimes dreams do come true... ]

i am basing my opinion on history.

but, since positng, i have modified my opinion a bit.

it would make little sense for apple to modify the 15" motherboard for a faster g4 if the 970 is right around the corner. if it isn't, there will be one more update.

either way, i will bet you bragging rights that the 970 will ship first in a desktop.

i dream too, but i try to be a realist also.

 

[idkew]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Justification, shmushtification!

Originally posted by NicoMan
A 64bit only OSX, I don't buy it. That is WAY too close to the OS9-OSX transition. And the Apple followers will still be traumatized by it in 2 to 3 years. No you will still be able to get the latest software for 32bits machine in 3, 4 years. It's just that some of the apps will be able to run optimized for a 64 bit chips (the same way that some apps can autosense a G4 and make use of Altivec. But it doesn't mean they don't run on a G3...). I think if you get a dual 1.25 you are somewhat future-proof (at least 2 years...).
But hey that is a very personal opinion.

NicoMan

has everyone forgoten about the 040 to PPC switch?

apple can and probably will support 32bit machines for quite a while. whether or not adobe and other "performance" app makers support 32bits past 3 or so years out is different.

anyone know how long it took classic to go all PPC? did it ever?

 

[blueflame]

so guys, can he ppc 970 processor be a rumor at all? is apple definitly even going to use them?

 

[Latino]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Justification, shmushtification!

Originally posted by jamilecrire
The thing you're missing is the 64bit 970 would be binary compatable with the 32bit G3/4. This was in the initial design of the G series processors. It's like the SPARC processors in the Sun/Solaris world. Everyone that built server apps (internal) would migrate to bigger hardware but their 32bit apps would run without recompilation on the newer 64bit processors.

Yes, a 64bit mac can still run 32bit OS X and 32bit apps, and I suppose a 64bit OS X would be able to run 32bit Apps. The problem here is that a 32bit machine would not be able to run 64bit OS X.

When/if Apple eleases a PPC970 Mac, they'll probably release a 64bit OS X to go with it. And then, it will only be a matter of time before they drop support for 32bit OS X. Supporting both OSs would be costly.

And that means no iTunes 6? Safari 2? whatever.

Developers may still sell 32bit and 64bit versions of their apps, but one of the most compelling features of the Mac platform are its innovations. If I can't get the new software from apple (itunes, iphoto, mail, ichat...) to run on my 32bit G3/G4, I'm stuffed

 

[Rincewind42]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Justification, shmushtification!

Originally posted by Latino
Yes, a 64bit mac can still run 32bit OS X and 32bit apps, and I suppose a 64bit OS X would be able to run 32bit Apps. The problem here is that a 32bit machine would not be able to run 64bit OS X.

Well, technically you could run a 64-bit OS on a 32-bit chip, but it wouldn't be as fast . And yes, you would be able to run 32-bit applications by definition, the PowerPC 970 supports a no-penalty 32-bit mode. Task switching would simply switch the CPU into and out of this mode as necessary.

When/if Apple eleases a PPC970 Mac, they'll probably release a 64bit OS X to go with it. And then, it will only be a matter of time before they drop support for 32bit OS X. Supporting both OSs would be costly.

There is no reason to believe that Apple will release a 64-bit version of MacOS X to compliment the PowerPC 970. The 970 can and does run 32-bit OSes just fine and with very minor modifications.

Developers may still sell 32bit and 64bit versions of their apps, but one of the most compelling features of the Mac platform are its innovations. If I can't get the new software from apple (itunes, iphoto, mail, ichat...) to run on my 32bit G3/G4, I'm stuffed

Not all applications will be 64-bit, there just isn't a need. Making, for example, iTunes 64-bit would be pointless, as it doesn't need 4GB of memory. Oracle Database however would probably debut as 64-bit since it most certainly can use that much memory.