apple chooses style over power?

[Rob587]

why does it seem like apple always goes for so much style when they need to be focusing on getting their users more power? My major example would be the power books. Im sure if you made them the "second" thinest laptops ever made we could see drastic power increases. Why doesnt apple just make a thin model and a thicker model in their 17" pb which is gennerally always used as a desktop replacement anyway?

I just always see steve on stage saying "weve had heat issues" or "it really been difficult"... well, why does he feel the need to make a 17" laptop 1/2 an inch thick(or w/e thickness it really is).

and by the way, Im not a mac hater.... Im switching in may because of the amazing OS, but it sure would be nice to have some pc comparable speeds, which the G5 powermacs do quite nicley I must add.

 

[PlaceofDis]

its not style, it is a level of quality that they are going for, Sure they could make a huge desktop, but that is an inferior product to them, and its not neccissary in their eyes, the powerbooks are powerful, they could use a better L2 cache and FSB, but in terms of MHz, they have plenty of punch imo, there wouldnt be that much difference if they put a G5 into there really, the 64bit isnt going to help anything besides memory addressing anyways, and space is limited on a laptop for Ram as it is.....

i dont see a problem with the current lineup, and i want and need a thin laptop rather than a powerful thick one with too many add ons, if i wanted the power i would get a desktop

 

[plinden]

why does it seem like apple always goes for so much style when they need to be focusing on getting their users more power? My major example would be the power books. Im sure if you made them the "second" thinest laptops ever made we could see drastic power increases. Why doesnt apple just make a thin model and a thicker model in their 17" pb which is gennerally always used as a desktop replacement anyway?

I just always see steve on stage saying "weve had heat issues" or "it really been difficult"... well, why does he feel the need to make a 17" laptop 1/2 an inch thick(or w/e thickness it really is).

and by the way, Im not a mac hater.... Im switching in may because of the amazing OS, but it sure would be nice to have some pc comparable speeds, which the G5 powermacs do quite nicley I must add.

They are one inch thick - the G5 iMac is about 2" thick, so to get the G5 into a Powerbook with current technology would mean making a brick. My 6 yr old Compaq Armada (see sig) is 2" thick and weighs 8lbs - I don't think Apple will ever release a PB that size.

By the way, any of the new PBs would more than match the AMD you have in your sig.

 

[LeeTom]

I have a 1.25GHz Powerbook, and I don't have any power/speed issues. It works great! Way better than my 2GHz PC, which I never use. I think this is a kind of argument that comes mostly from people that don't have Macs, that focus on the GHz too much. Once you actually start using one, you'll forget about all that.

 

[miloblithe]

Apple only makes a few different laptops in a few variations. Apple is committed to the pro/consumer versions of its computers, so the iBook/PowerBook division is not going to go. Apple then offers options of size, which seems to make sense. Apple simply doesn't have the resources to further divide the lines into ultralight, regular, and powerhouse versions of its laptops, and in that sense has to compromise between those types. As a result, we get light, compact, full-featured laptops that make sense for the broadest amount of people. The 17" PowerBook could be the exception to this as making it thin and light doesn't make as much sense as it's inherently not as portable. The problem is that would reduce the coherence of the line, and Apple is heavily concerned with aesthetics for a variety of reasons.

 

[wordmunger]

You know, this is an interesting point. I NEVER want Apple to go the way of Dell and have such a confusing Web site that I have no idea what computer to get (not that I'm planning on getting a Dell, mind you).

BUT...

There are 4 different types of desktop computers, each of which comes in different sizes/configurations. Meanwhile, there are only two types of laptops. I definitely think there is room in Apple's line for a series of desktop-replacement laptops: bigger, heavier laptops not meant to be lugged around everywhere, but portable enough to move from room to room or occasionally take to a coffee shop or a LAN party. This line could range from low-end to high-end, with the low end comparable to a mac mini, and the high end nearing the top of the line iMac, with a G5 and an 18- or 19-inch monitor.

I don't think this would be too confusing, and it would offer another option for Mac users.

 

[Rob587]

exactly! the way I think if it is comparing to what the powerbooks have now to a centrino pc laptop. Thay are about the same speed and size. So why doesnt Jobs make a real notebook comparable to the prescott like they do with pc laptops? (especially in the 17")

like dell has centrino skinny laptops, then they have faster bigger laptops with real pIII's.

 

[Rob587]

and someone b4 said that most ppl do this when they dont have an apple... they compare ghz..... but really that is technical speed, and you cant tell me that a powerbook will out perform a dell PIII laptop for gamming. Although im sure it holds its own with centrinos.

and I bet I know what ppl are gonna say to what I just said.... "dont get an apple powerbook if you want games" ..... well what if I need a laptop with barley any portability but some to use as a desktop replacement...? and what if I want to play games like a pc notebook and have the mac os all at once... then what?

 

[buryyourbrideau]

choose what is more important

 

[clayj]

I definitely think there is room in Apple's line for a series of desktop-replacement laptops: bigger, heavier laptops not meant to be lugged around everywhere, but portable enough to move from room to room or occasionally take to a coffee shop or a LAN party.

Isn't that kinda what the 17" Powerbooks already are? Seriously, those things are so huge that I just can't imagine carrying one around in a backpack... I tried one at the Apple Store here in Charlotte, and the deck space from the front of the notebook to the keyboard was large enough to build a football field on.

 

[Rob587]

why should I have to choose? why cant Apple go after the HUGE gamming community?

and thats my point... If the 17" is already not portable why not make it faster and a little thicker.

 

[grapes911]

As far as speed goes, google RISC vs. CISC. You may find it interesting.

 

[Blue Velvet]

why should I have to choose? why cant Apple go after the HUGE gamming community?

and thats my point... If the 17" is already not portable why not make it faster and a little thicker.

Look, face it. That's just the way it is...

If gaming is that important to you, get a new PC. If a better OS experience is more important, get a Mac.

Sometimes in life you have to make choices and sacrifices.

 

[grapes911]

If gaming is that important to you, get a new PC.

I agree. I have a fairly powerfull pc that rarely touches the internet. It sits there turned off until I want to play a game. It is much better for gaming than the mac (more upgradable, and more available games).

 

[Demon Hunter]

Apple's laptop design is the envy of the entire industry. Let the other laptop makers offer thick, unbearably heavy machines... it's just not in line with Apple's ideas of how a computer should be.

 

[vieoray]

i think the new iMacs are quite speedy for the price and the level of quality you get with apple.

what do you want to do that you need so much speed for?

 

[jackieonasses]

why should I have to choose? why cant Apple go after the HUGE gamming community?

and thats my point... If the 17" is already not portable why not make it faster and a little thicker.

That is the thing.... With better porting and better drivers..... We could have a greater gaming experience. But the gaming companies, don't try (due to the marketshare) UT2004 runs amazingly well on my powerbook 1ghz... and even it was poorly ported. The point is.

Apple believes in there philosophy, and that is The ideal computer is one that - is truly easy to use, rarely crashes, is not a hassle to use (ideally small and light)

I would hate a 2 inch powerbook. They need to figure out a viable solution to keeping both lightweight- and speed.


kyle

 

[clayj]

I know that a lot of Applephiles are going to slam Intel, but you do have to admit that they (Intel) have done the right thing by maintaining two separate processor lines... one that's for desktop PCs (where power consumption and heat are not critical problems) and one that's for mobile PCs (where they ARE critical problems).

Cramming a G5 that's designed for a desktop Mac with unlimited electrical power and a huge, airy case into a cramped, battery-powered notebook computer just doesn't make any sense. What you all should be clamoring for is for Motorola/IBM/Apple to develop a faster, low-power G4 (or G5) that's designed specifically for notebooks.

 

[CorvusCamenarum]

You can either:
1) Go to a nice private restaurant, where it costs a little more, the food takes a little longer to prepare, but it's exquisitely cooked and served in a lovely environment and no one comes around spitting in your soup and berating you to death until you buy the dessert cart even though you're full.

-or-

2) Go to a national chain that's cheap and maybe filling, but you:
-vomit four times trying to get the food down
-there are misbehaved small children running all over the place
throwing soggy frrench fries at you
-the beef is made from prison food rejects
-the employees can't tell the difference between a pickle and an onion
and which one you didn't ask for

You pick. One's faster.

 

[jbrjake]

why cant Apple go after the HUGE gamming community?

Here's my take: Apple wants to go after gamers and, one day, they will. Jobs flirted with the gaming community once, recall, to the point of establishing a short-lived dialogue with John Carmack. The problem is, for a Mac/Gaming orgy to ensue, the stars have to align.

Right now, Apple's machines simply aren't delivering the performance gamers desire. For G5s, let alone G4s. This isn't a problem with the hardware but, rather, the driver software. Panther will help some, and if Apple follows through on its newfound dedication to OpenGL, the first few iterations after 10.4.0 should bring even greater speed gains--I unknowingly believe for both G4s and G5s. Another problem is in the GPU department; until Apple jumps to a new graphics slot, and until that slot filters down to mobo designs for portables, Macs can't take advantage of the latest and greatest video cards.

Another factor is that Steve Jobs top priority right now is the HD Digital Hub. But you've got to wonder, once Apple's in the family room, and they're connected to the movies and the photos and the music...what's next? Bill Gates has been wondering that for a long time for Microsoft, and years ago he decided it would be games. Apple would never develop another console after its humiliating failure in the 90s, but it wouldn't take much for them to form an alliance with a company like Sony. I'd like to think Steve Jobs sees games as an impressively profitable emerging market he'd like to have a slice of, but that there are other market segments that have to come first. Which is best for Apple's shareholders? Getting Apple street cred in the gaming community, or making Apple the first choice for anyone with a digital camera or digital camcorder or mp3 library? But as each of these niches are conquered, gamers must look more and more tempting...

You've also got to ask (to mix some metaphors): "Which comes first, the horse or the cart—or the driver?" In order to get game developers to code for Macs and for gaming studios to speed PC->Mac ports, there has to be an installed base of gamers ready to hand over their $$ and the hardware has to deliver. But in order for there to be an installed base of rabid gamers, there has to be a library of fresh hot games to play. And machines for them to play on. And in order for the machines to be there, Apple has to feel the demand for fast gaming performance outweighs the significant costs. So all these things have to happen, there has to be a confluence of events.

I can also argue, contrary-wise, that there are plenty of awesome games out there for the Mac right now which run swell on current hardware, and a wonderful community of Mac gamers. It's just not all about the latest bloated PC blockbuster titles. Developers like Ambrosia have been dedicated to the Mac platform for years, etc. etc. (We lament for thee, Bungie!) So, in that sense, Apple has always gone after the gamers, and received them, and they have prospered.

 

[afields]

You can either:
1) Go to a nice private restaurant, where it costs a little more, the food takes a little longer to prepare, but it's exquisitely cooked and served in a lovely environment and no one comes around spitting in your soup and berating you to death until you buy the dessert cart even though you're full.

-or-

2) Go to a national chain that's cheap and maybe filling, but you:
-vomit four times trying to get the food down
-there are misbehaved small children running all over the place
throwing soggy frrench fries at you
-the beef is made from prison food rejects
-the employees can't tell the difference between a pickle and an onion
and which one you didn't ask for

You pick. One's faster.

Wow. Thats almost as bad as those car analogies.

 

[Macky-Mac]

why does it seem like apple always goes for so much style when they need to be focusing on getting their users more power?....

well, you are assuming that they actually have that choice. Years ago they committed the company to the G5 as their power chip of the future......and it just hasn't meet their expectations. Powermacs with the G5 3GHz were supposed to have been available last summer but they still haven't managed to get that chip into the product line.And they haven't been able to solve the technical problems of getting a G5 into a Powerbook yet. Right now Apple is in a difficult place with it's "power" lines stalled due to the failures of development of the G5.

So Apple is sort of stuck with only being able deliver on style at the moment.

 

[miloblithe]

There are 4 different types of desktop computers, each of which comes in different sizes/configurations. Meanwhile, there are only two types of laptops.

Well, really there are 5 different kinds of apple laptops.

12"
12" high end (lighter, smaller, more powerful)
14"
15"
17"

 

[wordmunger]

Well, really there are 5 different kinds of apple laptops.

12"
12" high end (lighter, smaller, more powerful)
14"
15"
17"

If you're going to play that game, there are actually NINE desktops:

eMac combo
eMac superdrive
iMac 17"
iMac 20"
Mac Mini 1.25
Mac Mini 1.42
PowerMac 1.8
PowerMac dual 2.0
PowerMac dual 2.5

The point is that there are 2 *lines* of laptops and 4 *lines* of desktops.

Adding one more line of laptops would not add a terrible amount of confusion.

Clayjohanson, I agree that the 17-incher is nearly a "luggable," but it's also a $2,700 computer. What I'm talking about is a more powerful, cheaper, but larger laptop. Maybe the lower models could have a G4, and the top-of-the-line could be fitted with a G5. Yes, they'd be bigger, but they'd mainly be for home use, so portability wouldn't be as big a factor.

For some outside-the-box thinking, how about a removable wireless monitor? It could be marketed as the home-entertainment version, where the monitor could either be wall-mounted or easily snap on to the CPU/keyboard. Perfect for gaming.

 

[miloblithe]

Well, I'll give you five or six desktops. The 5 laptops I mentioned all come in different cases and have (i believe) fairly different interiors. The desktops are mostly just the same things with different speed processors or other specs.

The Minis are the same computer with different specs.
The eMacs are the same computer with different specs.
There are arguably 2 iMacs.
There are arguably 2 PowerMacs, since the higher end ones have a different board design than the lower end ones that share design with the iMac (as I understand it).

I'm not saying I wouldn't like to see other Mac laptops, I'm just saying it complicates the manufacturing process and reduces economies of scale. Apple seems to try to limit the number of different things it has to manufacture, like how all the laptops have the same keyboard even though there's far more room on the bigger ones.