13inch iBooks along with Powerbooks

[dabirdwell]

Soon Pleeeze

I have gone through several iterations of desire for my new (first) Mac. First I was set on spending all my money to have a TiBook, then the new iMac sounded good, and now I have finally decided to get the next iBook revision.

It will be my perfect mobile social science lab for working on field studies, writing articles, working on books, acting as a wireless web portal, and managing music and digital photos.

I can't wait for this thing! When? When!

OK, well hopefully soon...

 

[djniche]

Any of you guys thought of this 13" being widescreen? this would give it higher resolution which equals more viewing realstate...

any thoughts?

 

[Falleron]

Re: Re: Bus Speed

Originally posted by nero007


It seems Apple has severly crippled this chip so that it is not faster then what is put into the tiBook.

Blame Motorola for not getting us faster G4's for the Tibook, not apple. That is the reason Apple has crippled the Sahara chip. Oh well.

 

[kcmac]

I would like to see the iBook go to a 13-inch screen if it can stay within the current size. I would be concerned that making the bezel around the screen smaller could reduce its strength and reduce the area for the airport antenna. (I have dropped my iBook on asphalt with only some minor cosmetic damage.)

A wide screen iBook might put it into the territory of the 14 inch form factor which I think is ugly. Too much room in the keyboard area. (Unless they make the keyboard bigger, wider.)

I can't see that having a 1 Ghz G3 iBook along with a 1Ghz G4 TiBook being a problem. They are two completely different machines.

Besides, with all of the speculation of the new IBM chip coming next fall or whenever, I think some people are thinking of holding back on their purchases...unless Apple can make these next uprgrades tempting. I think they should clock these things up. Make them tempting.

I am also hoping that an upgrade in the near future will actually ship before the end of the year. Some people (I am not in this camp) want a new machine that will still boot into OS 9. Shipping this year could draw these folks into buying now. Especially the PowerBook crowd.

 

[os4]

use the 19" with you iBook

Originally posted by Bradcoe


As far as this discussion goes, I'm sitting infront of an iBook 2001 12" but not typing on it. It's playing music instead. I don't like typing and viewing webpages on the iBook when I have a 19" Monitor at 1280x960 resolution hooked to a really old PC box.

Why not hook the 19" to the iBook? I do this, and it works great. I also have a dock to hook my iBook to a separate keyboard and mouse, as well as my other "desktop" periperals. Great set-up for mobility AND "desktop" work.

 

[pgwalsh]

Originally posted by hvfsl
Apple will never make the consumer models look faster than the pro models. So the best we can look for is 800Mhz for the iBook, unless the TiBook will be faster than 1Ghz. There are 1.2Ghz G3 chips avaliable at the moment.

Also the TiBook will be 933Mhz and 1000Mhz if the top iBook is 800Mhz, a 800Mhz TiBook will not sell well against a 800 iBook, it is just simple business sense.

I hear you on this one. However, I think a 1 or 1.2 ghz G3 iBook with a 13 in. screen is a no brainer. I'd like to see higher resolution as mentioned and 64mb or better video card.

With this setup I would definitely sport a new tower and iBook. I would use the tower for music, video and other processor hungry apps. The iBook would be perfect for weekend trips to Tahoe for writing and writing code snippets.

I think the PowerBook is a tradeoff for a PowerMac. Obviously some could sport both, but they are a select few. Apple should pump up the iBooks as much as possible while it’s still an economically viable solution for consumers and developers.

Due to the lack of speed and the reports of OSX being sluggish on the iBook, I'm hesitant to make a purchase. The PB is just a little too steep for my wallet and I prefer a desktop for projects, so, this excludes the PB. Granted I could get all the extras, but I don't want to bother.

 

[ddtlm]

hvfsl:

There are 1.2Ghz G3 chips avaliable at the moment.

Proof? Link?

nero007:

IMO, the best chip in any Apple computer right now is in the iBook.

Unfortunately this is not the case. The only things that the G3 has going for it are things directly related to it's 4-stage pipeline, such as a cheap and simple design, and a low penalty for branch mispredicts and instruction dependencies. Obviously it lacks AltiVec, the best feature of the G4, and it even has fewer scalar integer functional units. Oh, it does have 512k of on-die L2, that is a nice thing, though not amazing compared to 1meg of L3.

And if it weren't for the lagging speeds of the tiBook, the iBook would've hit 1ghz a long time ago.

Proof? Link?

 

[pgwalsh]

Re: use the 19" with you iBook

Originally posted by os4


Why not hook the 19" to the iBook? I do this, and it works great. I also have a dock to hook my iBook to a separate keyboard and mouse, as well as my other "desktop" periperals. Great set-up for mobility AND "desktop" work.

This was a common solution for my PC while at Nortel Networks. It worked for that job, but I don't want that as my creative workspace. I prefer having a laptop and a desktop. That's why a beefed up iBook would be perfect. The low price allows for the purchase of two machines.

 

[Postal]

I'm really hoping that this rumour is true... I'd love to have an iBook at 13" screen size, whether it's just a larger 4:3 display or through widescreen. The widescreen would likely be a better decision - not just for the "chic" factor, but in that it would also guarantee a higher resolution!

Speaking of which, something that bugs me tremendously is that there are too many laptops that use a 1024x768 resolution when they really shouldn't. I've been helping a friend shop for a laptop (unfortunately, the technical requirements preclude a Mac - even though my friend was interested), and I've found that even some 15" laptops still max out at 1024x768! That's low even for a desktop LCD (where you tend to sit further away from the screen).

 

[jkojima]

I own a PC laptop with a 13" XGA screen, am using a 12" XGA iBook 700 on loan, and also have access to a 14" XGA PowerBook Pismo G3. This is in addition to the 15" XGA LCD monitor attached to my desktop PC.

So, that's 1024x768 resolution as seen from every possible physical size from 12" to 15". Of all the screens, I am MOST happy with the density of the 12" iBook screen. It just looks... right. OS X DEMANDS a high density screen. With its ability to dynamically scale icons and text (coupled with almost every application's ability to zoom the working window, e.g. Word) I think it's a terrible waste to run that OS on a chunky 14" or even 13" XGA screen. Dell's super-high density UXGA 15" screens are gorgeous for text and photo editing... I would love to see a PowerBook with a resolution to match this, as the pixel density is closer to the resolution of print. And I would love to see an iBook with an SXGA or SXGA+ screen (1400 x 1050 for example).

The question is: will this happen on November 5th? I seriously doubt it - it sounds to me like the upgrades will be minor speed bumps and otherwise internal changes. The market at large seems to be content with XGA screens, and I doubt Apple will diverge from this for the iBooks.

 

[Kid Red]

I'm not sure where some of you are getting the 933 & 1.0ghz speeds for the new PBs. Apple always makes the top end the bottom end. That means we get 800& 933. Anyone hoping for a 1.0ghz PB in a few weeks is doing just that, hoping.

 

[NHMac]

Originally posted by akula47
I hope your correct. Another question though. If they do release a revision on November 5th, will it be ready to ship? Shipment in January is going to suck hard. Why even bother with the update, unless you have the machine ready.

You gotta believe that if they are annoucing this before x-mas that they will be ready to ship that day.... other wise you kill your holiday sales.

I think 933 and 1gig in the TiBooks would be a mistake... unless the 933 has drop in its price point.

 

[katchow]

i'm certainly trying not to get my hopes up...

the translation i got of Kodawarisan's message is that because of low supplies they thought it might be a "possibility" that there would be a simultaneous release...as opposed to "alongside upcoming Powerbooks, will be 13" 800Mhz iBooks". An as far as yourdailymac goes...that's got to be the silliest rumors site i've seen...they pluck their material out of forums like these by any speculating joe schmoe...

i know rumor sites are not to be taken too seriously, i just wish that this was supposed "insider info" instead of pure guessing...

listen to me, i feel silly...this waiting is makin' me stupid

ughh!

 

[ryan]

Originally posted by Kid Red
I'm not sure where some of you are getting the 933 & 1.0ghz speeds for the new PBs. Apple always makes the top end the bottom end. That means we get 800& 933. Anyone hoping for a 1.0ghz PB in a few weeks is doing just that, hoping.

Not always...

1st generation TiPB - 400MHz/500MHz
2nd generation TiPB - 550MHz/667MHz

QuickSilver PM G4 (High End) - Dual 1GHz
WindTunnel PM G4 (Low End) - Dual 867MHz

There are other examples but those are some of the more recent ones that show if nothing else there is no pattern.

 

[avkills]

Sahara G3

Apple has crippled this processor. It is a known fact that the processor can be overclocked to 800Mhz through software and in fact, the settings allow it to scale to 2Ghz, which would most definately fry it, but whatever.

If I get a powerbook anytime soon, you can bet I will opening up my iBook to see if you can hack it to a 200Mhz bus.

I would love to see what the sahara G3 could really do if in fact Apple let it have a 200Mhz bus, 200Mhz RAM, ran it as fast it could go, etc etc.

-mark

 

[esome]

Re: hhmmm...

Originally posted by technocoy
just a question... what's to stop apple from putting the 2mb level2 cache in the powerbooks??

thanks,
tech

I'm talking out my ass here so someone please jump in if they know better but I think the answer is, at least in part, $$$. L2 cache RAM is really expensive and would lower Apple's margins significantly.

 

[ryan]

Originally posted by ddtlm
hvfsl:


Proof? Link?

nero007:


Unfortunately this is not the case. The only things that the G3 has going for it are things directly related to it's 4-stage pipeline, such as a cheap and simple design, and a low penalty for branch mispredicts and instruction dependencies. Obviously it lacks AltiVec, the best feature of the G4, and it even has fewer scalar integer functional units. Oh, it does have 512k of on-die L2, that is a nice thing, though not amazing compared to 1meg of L3.


Proof? Link?

I wasn't the OP and I can't provide all the proof to backup their assertions but if you go here there is at least one aricle on IBM's 1GHz G3.

I'd be real interested in seeing a comparrison of a G3 and G4 system with everything else, memory, bus, video, etc., being the same. Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be a real easy way to do that. I suppose some performance tests could be run on an 450MHzB&W G3, swap out the processor with a 450MHz G4 and then re-run the tests...

 

[ncbill]

Overclock it in software

I would love a 13" screen (still at 1024x768).

There is no way Apple will put a widescreen LCD into the iBook.

If you want G4 and widescreen LCD Apple is ready to sell you a TiBook today (at almost twice the price of their iBook)

More realistically, I'm only looking for 800Mhz G3 and 30GB hard drive (though you can overclock the G3 in OS X and I'm guessing you could get at least 900Mhz to work off of a 800Mhz chip)

Video really needs an upgrade to at least partially counter the lack of Altivec for 10.2 and later, but I wonder if it will be any more than doubling the memory on the existing chip (32MB but no better video chip) Still, I guess that would help.

 

[ryan]

Re: Re: hhmmm...

Originally posted by esome


I'm talking out my ass here so someone please jump in if they know better but I think the answer is, at least in part, $$$. L2 cache RAM is really expensive and would lower Apple's margins significantly.

The problem also is, I think, that L2 cache RAM generates more heat which in turn consumes more power.

 

[Maclicious]

Re: Soon Pleeeze

Originally posted by dabirdwell
I have gone through several iterations of desire for my new (first) Mac. First I was set on spending all my money to have a TiBook, then the new iMac sounded good, and now I have finally decided to get the next iBook revision.

It will be my perfect mobile social science lab for working on field studies, writing articles, working on books, acting as a wireless web portal, and managing music and digital photos.

Personal experience: I have an iBook 500 MHz and generally love it. I am a writer of fiction and paper & pencil role-playing games, and spend 8+ hours a day writing text (on Word for OS X). I also like to make iMovies, listen to MP3s, and even play electronic games on the box. The iBook can do all this pretty well, and even stutter along with Warcraft III just quickly enough to keep me playing it. Pretty sweet.

But, after almost 12 months of this, I've come to the conclusion that 12 inches of screen is too small for my particular intensive daily use of it (for writing). It may be that 13 inches would do the trick.

But, I've decided that I'd rather go with 15 inches--when the upgrade with a decent Superdrive comes (a Superdrive with at least 4x DVD burning speed), I'm buying . In fact, even if the latest update of the Ti-Book doesn't have the Superdrive I want, I'll probably get the purported Piondeer 4x DVD stand alone burner (finally, someplace to store all my raw iMovie footage!)

 

[Telomar]

Originally posted by Bradcoe


No.

100Mhz Bus

It's a 100 MHz bus as you can see from here. The G4's 167MHz bus is one of the fastest (single rate) when compared to other similar priced purchase options (Intel, AMD, IBM, consumer).

I think IBM would be the better source.

Apple limits the bus not IBM.

 

[sjonni]

Originally posted by hvfsl
Apple will never make the consumer models look faster than the pro models. So the best we can look for is 800Mhz for the iBook, unless the TiBook will be faster than 1Ghz. There are 1.2Ghz G3 chips avaliable at the moment.

Also the TiBook will be 933Mhz and 1000Mhz if the top iBook is 800Mhz, a 800Mhz TiBook will not sell well against a 800 iBook, it is just simple business sense.

...Uhh. Please tell me where I can get this chip. And can I use it in my ibook?

 

[ddtlm]

Telomar, ryan:

The IBM 750fx paper says things like:

sampling for this new processor is planned for January, 2002

and

the 750FX will be offered at frequencies up to 1 GHz

Based on that, it is apparent that this article proves nothing about how fast 750fx chips can currently run. Perhaps they can hit 1.0ghz... perhaps not.

avkills:

Apple has crippled this processor. It is a known fact that the processor can be overclocked to 800Mhz through software and in fact, the settings allow it to scale to 2Ghz, which would most definately fry it, but whatever.

Apparently the new G4's can be overclocked as high as 1.4ghz. Are you going to claim that Apple is "crippling" them as well? And you're damn right that no 750fx on 130nm would make it anywhere near 2.0ghz, so who cares what those settings would allow... again, this means nothing as far as Apple "crippling" the 750fx. I'll admit that PC133 RAM and a 133mhz FSB would be nice, but such a change would likely not be earth-shattering. Anything beyond the 133mhz FSB and RAM would be getting into new chipsets and new memory, such as DDR, and that takes a lot of work and so I do not blame Apple for not doing it (I suspect they never will pair a G3 with DDR).

 

[sjonni]

The drive.

Do you folks think the iBook will get a faster drive (DVD-CD/RW) on this update?

 

[ddtlm]

ryan:

The problem also is, I think, that L2 cache RAM generates more heat which in turn consumes more power.

While I'm sure it generates some heat, it's not all that much. Apple has kept the 2mb L3 away probably for a combination of product line segmentation and cheapness.