Apple Releases New iBooks

[macrumors12345]

How are you so sure? Can you post a link or something? I know a lot of people are wondering cause noone has heard anything concret. Thanks for your help!

So much FUD being thrown around. Don't listen to all the rumormongers - they have little idea what they are talking about. The Radeon 9550 is a DX 9 capable part. It supports ARB_fragment_program in OpenGL. That is what is needed for CoreImage (and ripple effect, and Quartz 2D Extreme), so the 9550 definitely supports CoreImage. It's basically a question of whether the GPU supports the necessary instructions. The Rad 9200 does not (it is a DX 8.1 chip), but the Rad 9550 and 9600 do.

Now, it is possible, though unlikely, that Apple could choose not to enable CoreImage on the iBooks. Perhaps out of a concern about limited VRAM. However, in that case I guarantee you that someone will quickly release a patch that enables CoreImage on the 9550.

It's similar to when Apple required AGP and 32 MB VRAM for Quartz Extreme. In reality, all you really need for QE is support for textures of arbitrary size. So someone quickly wrote a patch that enabled it on PCI Radeons are such. Conversely, there was never and never will be a patch to enable it on Rage 128 chips because Rage 128 chips can only support textures of sizes equal to powers of two.

 

[Mood]

i'm getting a dell 700m. and to the response that it's windows xp, it's not. it's called linux with os x gui. FACE!

 

[rose red]

I have had my iBook since last monday and love it. I don't regret not waiting, I needed a computer. After such a long time since the last update, it really wasn't very much was it? It should have been done months ago, before the release of Tiger. The software should be following the hardware and not the other way, especially with such a long time lag. What is needed is a better screen resolution, and if that had happened I would have regretted my "early" purchase.

 

[macrumors12345]

I'm gonna buy the Dell Ispiron 9300 (17") for the same price as the 14" iBook. It beats it hands-down.

Apple has really crippled the iBooks in order to try to not hurt the Powerbooks.

Dell, here I come.

Yes, clearly the iBook is in the same class as a giant, bulky 8.5 pound notebook. Not only does it beat it in the CPU speed and screen size departments, but it completely thrashes it in the weight and size departments (more is always better, right??). Try comparing similar products next time, and by all means go run off and buy your Dell.

 

[sw1tcher]

I'm starting to think they're right... Apple's iBook G4 Grapics page doesn't mention Core Image, at all...

But it does say "Graphics set to stun"

 

[thejp2000]

I'm not disappointed by the update at all (although it would have been nice to have a 13" widescreen, or what I really wanted -- the option for a superdrive ).

What I'm disappointed in is the amount of time it took for them to release it. Seriously... nine months? I think that's what got everyone into such a frenzy. With a wait time like that, everybody was expecting something monumental.

I've been waiting to purchase for about seven months now (my fiancee spilled water on her iBook and fried the monitor); I've been telling her "let's just wait until they update." Seven months later -- some nice updates, but nothing they couldn't have given us two or three months ago.

 

[budugu]

i'm getting a dell 700m. and to the response that it's windows xp, it's not. it's called linux with os x gui. FACE!

I just returned the 700m not because of price/features that it has, but the keyboard. My HP TC1100 tablet PC with 10.4" screen has a bigger keyboard. i am not kidding on this. the base 9300 (17" - is an excellent machine about 8 lb and it is extremely cooooll when operating) model with 53w battery out performs 700m on battery life. But if these are not an issue (+ a reflective screen ...ahhh!) .. to you go ahead and get one!!

 

[macrumors12345]

All in all, I'm pleased. People here are way too negative.

They get all wrapped up in rumors from ever-so-credible sources like digitimes, and then when Apple doesn't deliver a 3 Ghz notebook with a 20" screen that weighs 2.5 pounds, priced at $99.99, they go nuts. Happens every time - it's just a function of the type of people attracted to these sites (look at their predictions/hopes beforehand...they're insanely optimistic, so they get completely disappointed when reality actually hits).

How dare Apple actually charge enough for the hardware to recoup its software R&D costs and make some profit!!! I want them to sell me stuff at a loss!

 

[QCassidy352]

I can not believe the negative feedback on this update. The mini... ok, it wasn't even really an update, more of a price drop (since an upgrade from 256 was basically mandatory).

But the ibooks... good lord, what is wrong with you people? What is it that you want? Is all of this negativity just because there's no widescreen? I hear people bi*ching about how slow the processor and bus are... and you expected what? That the ibook would go from a 1.2 Ghz to 1.5, making it the equal of the 12" powerbook? It's like all of the frustration at problems of the G4 in general is being taken out on these new ibooks, and I for one think it's just nuts.

Please remember that the ibook is supposed to be a student/consumer notebook, and I think that for that audience it does an outstanding job. Unless the 12" powerbook gets an update in the next month, one of those new 12" ibooks will be my computer for law school. 1.33 Ghz processor, 1.5 GB of RAM, 80 GB hard drive, AE and BT built in... yes, that will handle everything I need more than adequately!

 

[enginerd]

The ATI Radeon 9550 is a better card then what is in the 12" Powerbook.
http://www.driverheaven.net/reviews/955055005200/index.htm

The 256mb FX5200 in that review is castrated with awful core/memory clocks.
A 5200Ultra would be quite competitive with a 9550. I don't know how Apple clocks their 5200s but I hope it would be faster than this review's parts.

Card Core speed Mem speed
256mb FX5200 250mhz 160mhz (320--double for DDR)
standard FX5200 250mhz 200mhz (400)
5200 Ultra 325mhz 325mhz (650)

See here for some more benchmarks with a 5200, 5200Ultra and 9600 for comparison. They are generally comparable in real world apps. The 9550 would be just a tick below the 9600.

http://graphics.tomshardware.com/graphic/20041004/vga_charts-05.html
Keep checking the pages beyond for more apps/games.

Chart with comparison of cards.
http://graphics.tomshardware.com/graphic/20041004/vga_charts-02.html

With that said, they're still all slow cards.

EDIT: and oh yeah, the 9550 is definitely Core image compliant. In the PC world, it is simply a 9600 with the same memory speed (200/400), but reduced core speed. (250mhz in 9550 vs 325mhz in 9600)

 

[bodeh6]

To end this Core image discussion, we will just have to wait till either Apple updates the Core Image page of the Tiger section of their website or somebody actually gets their hands on one of these new iBooks and checks the graphic card properties in the About this Mac in Finder.

There is a 99.899494% chance that this GPU is compatible with Core Image technology.

 

[budugu]

Yes, clearly the iBook is in the same class as a giant, bulky 8.5 pound notebook. Not only does it beat it in the CPU speed and screen size departments, but it completely thrashes it in the weight and size departments (more is always better, right??). Try comparing similar products next time, and by all means go run off and buy your Dell.

all the ibook 14" (6 Lbs ?) vs 9300 17" stuff aside ... 9300 is 7.6 -8.0 base config ...heck apple 17" is 7 lbs. It runs cool has the latest stuff and a huge nice screen ... all this is worth the 2 pounds definitely... And it runs very cool all the time!! ... i am more impressed with 9300 than with 700m!! If you just need a computer not a "mac" then that i would advice is an excellent buy!

 

[welborn]

To end this Core image discussion, we will just have to wait till either Apple updates the Core Image page of the Tiger section of their website or somebody actually gets their hands on one of these new iBooks and checks the graphic card properties in the About this Mac in Finder.

There is a 99.899494% chance that this GPU is compatible with Core Image technology.

True, but is the 32MB enough?

 

[QCassidy352]

True, but is the 32MB enough?

Depends on what you want to do, I guess. Enough for Doom 3 with reasonable framerates? No. Enough for World of Warcraft with reasonable framerates? Yes. Enough for a non-gamer just using the graphical features of the OS and other common applications? Easily.

 

[Mood]

They get all wrapped up in rumors from ever-so-credible sources like digitimes, and then when Apple doesn't deliver a 3 Ghz notebook with a 20" screen that weighs 2.5 pounds, priced at $99.99, they go nuts. Happens every time - it's just a function of the type of people attracted to these sites (look at their predictions/hopes beforehand...they're insanely optimistic, so they get completely disappointed when reality actually hits).

How dare Apple actually charge enough for the hardware to recoup its software R&D costs and make some profit!!! I want them to sell me stuff at a loss!

in 9 months they gave us the stupidest updates. 9 BLOODY MONTHS FOR A shock absorber, BT 2.0, trackpad, and 512 megs of ram. Wow just wow. 9 Months is a mighty long time for an update, and it better be something significant. this is an update they could've done 4.5 months ago.

 

[skythefly13]

I was expecting something bigger

I was expecting something more important to be added to the line like a different model or something, this reminds me of the Powerbook updates in January (I think thats when it was?), it just made people mad.

 

[macrumors12345]

Radeon 9550 will compete well with Intel 900GMA graphics, probably even with 950GMA. 32MB of dedicated memory? Better than having to share system memory.

Sorry to pick on you, since you are far from the worst offender here wrt to over-rating integrated graphics, but that statement is just plain wrong. The Radeon 9550 will not "compete well with Intel 900GMA" graphics - it will completely DESTROY Intel 900GMA graphics. Your statement is like saying, "The 1.8 Ghz Pentium-M will compete well with a 600 Mhz G3."

Check out some benchmarks:

http://www20.graphics.tomshardware.com/graphic/20050208/geforce_6200-11.html

The GMA 900 gets chewed up, spit out, reingested, and regurgitated by the POS Radeon X300 family. (the X300 falls around the Rad 9200 in terms of performance...standard X300 > 9200 > X300 SE; for example, check out http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/powercolor-x300se_6.html )

Yes, integrated graphics have improved (which isn't saying much given how terrible they are to begin with). But solutions like GMA 900 still cannot consistently match even a low end video card with dedicated VRAM, let along a decent mid-range card like the 9550. The CPU (really, the FSB) isn't great compared to Pentium-M, but Rad 9550 GPU on a sub-$1000, sub-5 lb notebook is outstanding. Anyone who says otherwise is smoking some serious stuff.

 

[mklos]

It is Apple's fault that their laptops are inferior AND more expensive than the main PC brands out there. I just can't use anything except OS X, so I have to buy. If OS X could run on any machine, I sure as he!! wouldn't be buying a Mac!

Well what do you want Apple to do, crap out a 3 GHz G4 processor? Apple can only put the technology in their computers thats provided to them. Right now, this is the best Apple can do with what they have to work with. This is why Apple is changing chip manufacturers, because the current technology isn't advancing fast enough with their current providers. Believe me, if Apple could put a 3GHz processor in the iBook today, they would do it.

As far as prices go, well the iBook is the best value out there for what you get IMO. You cannot compare a POS $699 Dell, or HP laptop to an iBook. Thats like comparing a $399 Dell to a $1799 iMac G5. Macs will always be more expensive than Dell or HP for numerous reasons that have been explained time and time again in this forum. If you don't like the prices, then go somewhere else. The price isn't everything. The iPod is pretty much the most expensive MP3 Player there is, yet its the best selling MP3 player in the world by far. Its more than prices, its looks, build quality, software, etc... The iBook has everything most consumers want. If there are other things you need, then again, an iBook isn't the computer for you. You're just trying to get a 12" PowerBook for $200 less.

Quit your bitching and be happy with what you have. Too many people in thsi forum expect way too much from Apple. Its not like Apple can wave a magic wand over their computers and WHOOSH, here is a 3 GHz iBook for $799.

 

[ph0rce]

weeee mines orderd happy days from now on, will be just right for school me thinks just need the updated MSN to speak to my mates on windoze

 

[ph0rce]

oh yea, i think some of you are forgeting something amazing with the iBook. 6 hours battery. thats one reason why the CPUs arnt like a powermacs and a powerbook for that matter be happy with what they gave you, they could just shut down tomoz and not come back, what would you guys say to that ?

 

[Mood]

the last post was so wrong. we don't want a 3 ghz ibook. and even if we wanted a 3 ghz ibook, they could probably do it. it was more a matter of ibm not meeting apple's parasitic conditions for the ibm processors where ibm would lose tons of money for supplying apple. apple is becoming another microsoft. it's not about the speed, we are ibook users, we wanted something that is useful, and after 9 months...after 4 years there really is no differenec between a 2001 ibook and a 2005 ibook beyond some stupid features that are hardly used.

i would pay more for an ibook over a powerbook if it had the same features just because i like the design and the batteyr life and the high wi-fi range.

widescreen isn't that hard, nor is superdrive, nor is 64 megs of video ram, nor is dual display/resizing resolutions, dvi, etc.

 

[bodeh6]

I like the updates. They are enough for the average consumer. If you need more power, get a 15" or 17" Powerbook.

 

[jiv3turkey748]

i cant wait for the intel switch i think that by then we will actually start to see reasonable updates and hopefully reasonable prices

 

[psycho bob]

Judging on the CPU speed of the new iBook of 1.42Ghz I deduce that the FSB is now 166mhz. Yes! (not being sinical, in case you are in doubt)

The bus for the 1.42GHz iBook is 142MHz (133MHz for the 1.33GHz) it says on Apple's iBook pages. I wonder they have decided to do the bus as a 10th of the overall clockspeed for these models. The old MDD Powermacs and current Powerbooks use a 167MHz bus which is not linked to clockspeed, are these new G4 chips? Do they point to the mythical 2GHz G4 with 200MHz bus?

 

[macrumors12345]

I just find it very funny that people talk about how great of a value the iBook is when far better laptops can be had for far less money. OS X is great and all but that does not mean you should cripple yourself with a laptop with subpar graphics, low resolution and a very old processor when so much better can be had... just my opinion.

I just find it funny how some people have so little grounding in reality. Yes, the processor is inferior to comparable PC laptops (which is why Apple is switching to Intel, duh). No, the resolution is not inferior to other standard 12" screens. No, the graphics are not subpar: Radeon 9550 will trash integrated graphics and is substantially better than low end GPUs found in many sub-$1000 laptops lucky enough to even have a dedicated graphics card (e.g. X300 SE). Yes, it's only 32 MB VRAM, but I'd readily take 9550/32 MB over X300 SE/64+ MB.

You're only batting 0.333. That's pretty good for baseball, but not too good for a forum in which you can easily look up the relevant facts in Google.