13inch iBooks along with Powerbooks

[Bradcoe]

Re: use the 19" with you iBook

Originally posted by Telomar
I think IBM would be the better source.

Apple limits the bus not IBM.

You're correct. However I was referring to, and obviously should have clarified, the iBooks bus speed, running with the G3.

Therefore: Be more specific.

 

[Bradcoe]

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.

I've done this before. 1024x768 is still 1024x768 regardless of it being spread over 19" or 12.1". In fact, I prefer the look of all those pixels squeezed into less square inches. It gives it a crisper image. Now, if the iBook could do 1280x or something higher than 1024x then I would run it on the 19"

 

[avkills]

Crippled Procs

Originally posted by ddtlm
Telomar, ryan:

The IBM 750fx paper says things like:


and

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:


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).

Actually PC133 Ram works in the iBook, although it only runs at 100Mhz, even though the system profiler says it is PC133. Apple's current system controller for the Xserve and the top tier towers could handle DDR RAM coupled to the Sahara G3. Even if the bus moved to 133 and utilized DDR, it would work and be true DDR to the processor.

The amazing thing is that the 700Mhz Sahara only kicks out 5-6watts max, which is pretty impressive.

I mentioned in another BB that in my opinion the current crop of iBooks are basically souped up versions of the pre-titanium powerbooks.

I would still like to see how a machine would run if the Sahara G3 was used to its full potential.

-mark

 

[pgwalsh]

Originally posted by ddtlm
Telomar, ryan: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.

IBM did have the 1Ghz G3 listed on the site for "purchase," but they changed their site around since then. This was brought up in the forums before and there was a link, but I'm not going to bother.

 

[ryan]

Originally posted by pgwalsh

IBM did have the 1Ghz G3 listed on the site for "purchase," but they changed their site around since then. This was brought up in the forums before and there was a link, but I'm not going to bother.

Thanks for backing me up pgwalsh. Also, since that 1GHz document was from 10+ months ago I'm sure they've reached that speed, and possibly exceeded by now. Remember, this is IBM we're talking about, not Motorola.

 

[ryan]

Originally posted by ddtlm
ryan:


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.

Segment it from what, the iBook, the G4 towers? The PowerBook already differentiates itself from the iBook in part through its use of a G4 instead of a G3. Seeing as how Apple doesn't make a portable that is positioned "above" the TiPB in terms of features/price the reason for not including the larger L3 cache is almost certainly a price/technical issue, not a marketing one. As far as a differentiation between Apple's desktop and portable lines that occurs through the very nature of a given machine being either a desktop or portable.

 

[Ensoniq]

I don't know if Apple has plans to release anything on November 5th, so I can't speak to that. But I did want to address the concept of a 13" wide-screen iBook.

Biggest positives for the 12" iBook: Compact size, awesome screen clarity.
Biggest complaints on the 14" iBook: Too bulky, 1024x768 max resolution.

We all assume Apple sells more 12" machines than the 14" ones. And though it seemed like a good idea on paper, 14" has overall been a flop for mother Apple, coming out of her womb like a fanged beast.

So Apple should look at the success of the 12" and start over with the next revision of a larger-screened iBook. I feel a 13" wide-screen iBook is perfect, for a wide (no pun intended) variety of reasons.

First, let's look at current Apple LCD-based products:

15" PowerBook G4 &nbsp&nbsp- Currently wide-screen.
17" iMac G4 LCD &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp- Currently wide-screen.
15" iMac G4 LCD &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp- Speculation says discontinued shortly.
15" Studio Display - Officially discontinued.
17" Studio Display - Could be replaced now by iMac 17" wide-screen.
19" Studio Display - Rumored to be coming soon...and wide-screen.
22" Studio Display - Currently wide-screen.
23" Studio Display - Currently wide-screen.

See a pattern here? Apple clearly loves the wide-screen concept. They focus on iMovie/iDVD/SuperDrive as major selling points. So to turn the entire Apple LCD lineup into wide-screen across the board would be a major coup for them.

The poor iBooks stand out as being non-conformists with their very "outdated" square screens. So it's perfectly logical to believe that a wide-screen iBook DOES fit into Apple's product vision. And if done right, it could replace BOTH the 12" & 14" iBooks simultaneously, cutting Apple's production costs.

So with all that out of the way, let's address this theoretical 13" wide-screen iBook:

1 - Compact travel size like the 12" iBook:

Current 12" iBook: &nbsp&nbsp11.2" Wide / 9.1" Deep / 1.35" Thick
Current 15" TiBook: &nbsp13.4" Wide / 9.5" Deep / 1" Thick

With the measurements above, we see that the TiBook is 2.2" wider than the iBook, but only .4" deeper. NOW...imagine an iBook shaped like the TiBook, but with a 13" screen. What would happen to the size? It would be both LESS WIDE and LESS DEEP than the current TiBook. Even leaving room for more bezel around the screen to keep it more rugged, the math tells us this new iBook would have to be less deep, and only slightly wider than the current 12" iBook. No one could say that such a machine would not be compact. And it would even further make the 14" iBook look like the behemoth that it is.

2 - Increased resolution over the 14" iBook:

Current 12" iBook: &nbsp1024x768 Max Resolution
Current 14" iBook: &nbsp1024x768 Max Resolution

Two machines...one with a 2" larger screen. SAME RESOLUTION. If the issue for buying a larger screen is eyesight, it may not matter. But if you wanted a larger desktop area, no such luck.

Now what if we have a 13" iBook and 15" TiBook. Just like the above...2 machines, one with a 2" larger screen. Theoretically, Apple could give that iBook the same resolutions as the TiBook, with a maximum possible of 1280x854.

However, in order to differentiate between the more expensive PowerBook, and possibly due in part to a less powerful graphics chip, let's say 1152x768. (That is what the TiBook originally had before the jump to 1280x854, which was a 23% increase.)

So even if we assume 1152x768, that gives us a 12.5% increase in desktop space over BOTH current iBooks, in a package easily smaller than the 14" iBook and arguably only slightly wider than the 12" iBook. With a pixel density guaranteed to produce the 12" sharpness and clarity many gush over.

Frankly, a 13" wide-screen iBook would kick all previous iBooks square in the nads. If we get 32 MB of VRAM...even better. If the TiBook hits 1 GHz with a G4 and we can offer an 800 MHz to 1 GHz G3 Sahara chip...even better still. But I hope all the nay-sayers claiming Apple would never build this machine are wrong. It would have all the same distinctions between it and the PowerBook that today's iBooks have. But even changing NOTHING but the screen, it would be a far superior machine to either current iBook offering.

IMHO, of course...

 

[ddtlm]

avkills:

Apple's current system controller for the Xserve and the top tier towers could handle DDR RAM coupled to the Sahara G3. Even if the bus moved to 133 and utilized DDR, it would work and be true DDR to the processor.

Does it use the same bus protocol? And why do you think that they can "utilize DDR" on the G3 FSB... there is certainly nothing that I am aware of that suggests that. It may be able to go to 200mhz SDR FSB, but that is not the same as 200mhz DDR, and certainly not the same as 266mhz and 333mhz DDR.

ryan

Segment it from what, the iBook, the G4 towers?

If I recall Apple didn't put the L3 onto the PBooks until the iBook was around the corner with 512k. But anyway, if you won't accept the segmentation idea, then you are left with cost and nothing else. (Heat is not a problem for a single extra MB of L3.)

 

[MikeH]

So even if we assume 1152x768, that gives us a 12.5% increase in desktop space over BOTH current iBooks, in a package easily smaller than the 14" iBook and arguably only slightly wider than the 12" iBook. With a pixel density guaranteed to produce the 12" sharpness and clarity many gush over.

I'm hoping for much the same thing. What with the1024 x 768 res 15 inch Display discontinued, and the 15 inch iMac on it's way out it would be logical to make to increase the res of the iBooks - I think OS X needs the room.

I'd also like to see iDVD work with external DVD writers, seems a shame to me it doesn't (yes, yes, I'm sure it's all to do with selling Macs with DVD-R's, it just seems a bit petty that's all).

 

[ryan]

Originally posted by ddtlm
ryan

If I recall Apple didn't put the L3 onto the PBooks until the iBook was around the corner with 512k. But anyway, if you won't accept the segmentation idea, then you are left with cost and nothing else. (Heat is not a problem for a single extra MB of L3.)

Well since I'm not much of hardware guy I'll take your word on the heat/power issue, but as you're found of saying if you you could provide proof/link that would be nice.

So cost it is then. Another issue may simply have been that chips with L3 cache weren't available, or at least not at a reasonable cost (Gasp! There's that word again.).

 

[D*I*S_Frontman]

Ensoniq makes a strong argument. Who wouldn't buy a widescreen higher res 13" iBook? It would still be MUCH closer in dimensions to the 12" than the 14".

It is entirely possible that the "widescreen only" coup may be in the works--the 15" displays are already gone. Take the 17" iMac's display and make it a stand-alone replacement for the 4:3 15" lcd monitor. Phase out 15" iMacs. Add new 19" widescreen monitor. Make iBooks widescreen. All very doable before the Christmas season.

17, 19, 23 inch widescreen lcd monitors
13 inch widescreen iBooks
15 inch widescreen TiBooks

What a marketing crusher--all systems widescreen beauties (except eMac and original iMac combo units). Instantly makes all PCs look antiquated by comparison.

Who knows? Another Christmas present from Apple I would like to see would be allowing for 3rd party DVD-R support for iDVD instead of the gun-in-the-ribs tactic of only allowing it under Studio DVD. It certainly would get even more people addicted to the platform in the long run.

And while I am sure most of you are right about Apple intentionally crippling the Saharas, I think it is deplorable to do so. G3 vs G4 (AltiVec) should be more than enough differentiation. There is no reason we shouldn't have 800mhz-1ghz iBook offerings along side 800mhz-1ghz TiBooks. Bus speed, graphic card/memory, and AltiVec should be more than enough of a difference between a "consumer" and "pro" machine to justify price stratification, not to mention the killer display and miraculously thin form factor of the TiBooks.

Would a faster widescreen iBook eat some Ti sales? Perhaps to a trivial degree. But how many "switchers" would hop to make the widescreen iBook their first Mac? How many legacy Mac owners would bite on such a sweet plum rather than limp their old system along another year? A new widescreen iBook buyer now will likely be an upgrader down the road--and given the eventual demise of the G3, that upgrade will be occuring sooner than later, I bet. I am convinced a lot of TiBook owners buy them for the status of owning the coolest machine around, and those buyers won't care about the iBook's specs because its form factor is not nearly as chic. Real pros who use AltiVec-heavy applications won't care about the iBook's speed either, as it won't help render Photoshop filters or video transitions anywhere near as fast as a G4, even if base clock speeds are the same. So who are we actually stealing away from Ti purchases by making a faster widescreen iBook? Maybe a few indecisive prosumers balking at the Ti's premium pricetag. That's it.

With the economic woes of this year even affecting Apple somewhat, wouldn't it be great to blast through the Christmas season with a fresh round of new products? Let's go out with a bang instead of a whimper. WIDESCREENS ALL!!

Ensoniq, I hope you are right. And I hope Apple is listening...

 

[cubist]

I'm sold, Ensoniq!

"Frankly, a 13" wide-screen iBook would kick all previous iBooks square in the nads... even changing NOTHING but the screen, it would be a far superior machine to either current iBook offering."

I'm sold! Bring it on!

 

[ddtlm]

ryan:

I'll take your word on the heat/power issue, but as you're found of saying if you you could provide proof/link that would be nice

Hehe. My reasoning is that no chip so small as 1MB L3 that lacks a heatsink can be drawing much power.... there is a very nice relationship between chips making heat and chips using power.

I ran over to www.micron.com but couldn't find actual heat specs on individal chips of RAM in the time allotted. Gotta run now.