Apple Releases New PowerBooks

[fklehman]

Anyone have any tips as to where to max out the ram on the new PB? I usually buy my ram from OWC but they don't yet carry DDR2-4200 for the PBs. Where else can you get good ram with a lifetime warranty? Where have you had good experience with customer/tech support?

 

[Duckless 2nd]

My 15 incher

My 15 inch model just arrived. I was suprised that it came this fast. I paid the extra $21 for overnight delivery cuz i have not patience. So far the res it quite nice. I am glad to be done with my ibm laptop. The ibm (2.13Ghz Pent M) seems faster though, but it lacks style. Oh, yeah, and it runs windows!

So far so good. i ordered the crucial RAM and hopefully it gets here soon. For those of us who only use the laptop for travel, and not the main machine (i use a desktop for that) this is a great unit.

Althought i am happy now, i cannot wait to get a MacTel laptop! But this will do for now.

 

[davidgilmour]

12 inch is very unpopular

Everyone in here is talking about the 15 inch PB.
The 12 inch used to be the most popular PB.

Apple has screwed up big....

 

[Duckless 2nd]

Everyone in here is talking about the 15 inch PB.
The 12 inch used to be the most popular PB.

Apple has screwed up big....

I dont think Apple made a mistake here. I have several friends who wanted to upgrade from the 12 incher to the 15 incher as well. 12 inches was great to carry around, but hard to use and had a weak res. A 13.3 incher would be ideal. This 15 is a bit big, but i like that i can read the screen and see more than i can on the little 12'er.

My guess is that the 12'er will go away and when the Intel switch for the mobile line is started we will see a lot more size options.

 

[digitalbiker]

i think that this is not a good time to buy a G4 computer for a good investment, it has got to be either a G5 or a future model of Mactel... G4 processors are simply too tired... when Apple finally puts an intel processor into the PowerBook the speed boost will be significant

Maybe. But maybe the first generation Intel Mac laptop will be a piece of crap too. Fast chip but nothing to run on it, possibly buggy OS, hardware drivers, etc.

Best bet will most likely be 2nd gen. Intel Mac laptop that hopefully will be using the Merom chip. Expect to wait to 2007 before most x86 native software comes available.

Makes the Feb. 2005 upgrade, look like it was the very best upgrade to buy in terms of very useful longevity. I mean that it will have lasted 2 years before even a useful speed increase occurs.

 

[macam]

Sleeping Pills didn't work

So I've decided to get the 15". I have this thing - once I know what I am going to get I wait a couple of days just to make sure - then I will buy - So I will be making my purchase at the close of the weekend I think!

It's good to get the opinions of people... Been using my G4Powermac for 4ish years... and I have never had a laptop... so that's why I am umming and ahhing.

Plus my 17" CRT Monitor is going so badly - that I have to get a new one soon. 20" here I come - it's about time my G4 got a proper screen.

So now that's done - I guess we're going to have to talk about the inevitable Intel switch. I have been avoiding this and why I am so keen to get the last rev PPC Powerbook.

So I have to ask - is it me or does it sound like Yonah and Merom are like something out of the transformers?! And will the Decepticons finally infiltrate the goodness of Apple?!

Find out next wednesday kids!

macam

 

[efoto]

I dont think Apple made a mistake here. I have several friends who wanted to upgrade from the 12 incher to the 15 incher as well. 12 inches was great to carry around, but hard to use and had a weak res. A 13.3 incher would be ideal. This 15 is a bit big, but i like that i can read the screen and see more than i can on the little 12'er.

My guess is that the 12'er will go away and when the Intel switch for the mobile line is started we will see a lot more size options.

I could potentially see Apple replacing the 12 inch model with a 13.3 inch version, but I doubt we will see many more sizes available post-Intel changeover. Apple has a nice and compact lineup and has no real need to overpopulate their offerings like Dell (12, 13.3?, 14, 15, 15.4, 17) and each one has unique features and options....what a hassle.

I like the placement of sizes currently. 12/14 iBooks, 12/15/17 PBooks....great job in my eyes, these eyes ---> 😱

 

[digitalbiker]

Yes, that's hard to do in this day and age. 😉 It will be interesting to see how this works when the Intel switch begins. Comparing Apples to Apples is one thing, and an easy way to see how outdated your machine might be, but throw brand new architectures into the mix, and it might not be as intuitive until people get their hands on some meaningful benchmarks.

Ultimately though it matters how useful it is to the owner.

Who cares if the Cinebench benchmark is 50% faster if the key software that you use everyday has to run slower than your old PPC because it only runs under rosetta.

My main comcern with the Intel switch is not the speed and heat of the Intel processors but instead is how it will effect software developers. I wonder how many companies will use the x86 compatibility as an excuse not to re-write and optimize for OS X when all they have to do is tell Mac users to use WINE or VPC for OS X x86.

I know when Apple made the switch to OS X from OS 9 they lost quite a few software titles. Especially in the earth sciences, education, and gps software fields. Now a software developer doesn't even lose all of their sales to the Mac market even if they make a windows only software package. How many native OS X x86 software titles will never be released that were available for PPC OS X?

 

[jimN]

I dont think Apple made a mistake here. I have several friends who wanted to upgrade from the 12 incher to the 15 incher as well. 12 inches was great to carry around, but hard to use and had a weak res. A 13.3 incher would be ideal. This 15 is a bit big, but i like that i can read the screen and see more than i can on the little 12'er.

My guess is that the 12'er will go away and when the Intel switch for the mobile line is started we will see a lot more size options.

I was unlucky enough to be stuck waiting in an airport departure lounge on monday and it gave me a chance to people watch (always passes the time, especially when you've used up all your spare currency and can't afford anymore to eat or drink). The majority of people using laptops had small form factor machines with screens around the 12" mark - although none were using apples.

I appreciate that this is far from definitive proof but you can't get away from the extreme portability of the 12" and for it's size it really packs in the features - many other systems of that size drop the optical drive to achieve the slim form factor. The screen resolution has never bothered me but the battery life is a bit of a drag. I for one fall into the "apple are making a big mistake if they neglect the 12" line" camp, and i'm sure that a breakdown of sales, at least amongst PCs, would support this.

 

[berkleeboy210]

Well my 15" PB is on it's way. Shipped via FedEx Today from China, No delivery date yet, but will edit the post later if I find out.

Nice Job Apple, Didn't even take 24hrs for this thing to ship out 🙂

Now I get to bother FedEx until it's delivered 🙄

 

[cookieme]

Yea, i sold my v1 1.67 powerbook last night for 1,880, edu pricing for the new powerbook was 1,888 🙂

$8 for a new powerbook pretty much. lol

How did you manage to only lose $8 for the new pb? Where did you sell your old one?

 

[maddav]

I was unlucky enough to be stuck waiting in an airport departure lounge on monday and it gave me a chance to people watch (always passes the time, especially when you've used up all your spare currency and can't afford anymore to eat or drink). The majority of people using laptops had small form factor machines with screens around the 12" mark - although none were using apples.

I appreciate that this is far from definitive proof but you can't get away from the extreme portability of the 12" and for it's size it really packs in the features - many other systems of that size drop the optical drive to achieve the slim form factor. The screen resolution has never bothered me but the battery life is a bit of a drag. I for one fall into the "apple are making a big mistake if they neglect the 12" line" camp, and i'm sure that a breakdown of sales, at least amongst PCs, would support this.

I know what you mean, I'd managed to talk a few people into picking up 12" PBs because of the ultra-portability, however the announcements (or lack of) on wednesday put me off buying untill next year, when I assume the Intel PBs will be released, and hopefully by then there'll be a good showing for the 12" / 13" or whatever it is then.

I'm stuck in this annoying predicament, where I have a good monitor/LCD TV ideal for use for any computer over VGA, I want the iMac (specs), but can't justify having another monitor. The PB is ideal for it's closed lid mode, and the 15/17" models having a good amount of VRAM.

 

[berkleeboy210]

How did you manage to only lose $8 for the new pb? Where did you sell your old one?

eBay 🙂

 

[NewbieNerd]

I was unlucky enough to be stuck waiting in an airport departure lounge on monday and it gave me a chance to people watch (always passes the time, especially when you've used up all your spare currency and can't afford anymore to eat or drink). The majority of people using laptops had small form factor machines with screens around the 12" mark - although none were using apples.

I appreciate that this is far from definitive proof but you can't get away from the extreme portability of the 12" and for it's size it really packs in the features - many other systems of that size drop the optical drive to achieve the slim form factor. The screen resolution has never bothered me but the battery life is a bit of a drag. I for one fall into the "apple are making a big mistake if they neglect the 12" line" camp, and i'm sure that a breakdown of sales, at least amongst PCs, would support this.

I think it goes without saying that Apple knows its audience well. Do you remember how much complaining people did before the pbooks/pmacs were updated? People saying that Apple isn't a computer company anymore since they seemingly dedicated sooo much time to the iPods. Fact is, iPods sell. Period. Apple knows this, and that's why the company is strong right now. Apple also knew they had to do something to tide us over until MacTels, and I think they have done a decent job of that given what IBM has offered, or what IBM hasn't offered to be more accurate. Apple was unable to provide a great improvement in chip for the pbook b/c IBM couldn't deliver, and it would have been foolish to redesign the pbook for a different chip, isight, whatever until the Intels show up. As someone else said, let's just be thankful that Apple is strengthening itself via iPod sales to support this difficult change.

So I really don't think Apple believes everyone wants a 15 or 17'' powerbook. Why weren't the 12's updated? I don't know. Perhaps the iBooks and pBooks will be merged when MacTels show up. Either way, I think most of the travelling businessmen using these small laptops that you described are not power users. They use Word, Excel, and check their email. That's it. They don't need a pbook, only an ibook. This is what my fiance needs, and that's why we ordered her an ibook. People who need the power and do a lot of computing probably need the 15''. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's just the way I see it.

Just have faith in Steve. 🙂

 

[cookieme]

eBay 🙂

No way I didn't think that it was that easy to sell a second hand computer even though it's a mac! So you put a price close to that when you purchased it and somebody took it instead of going for a new one? Weird!

 

[berkleeboy210]

No way I didn't think that it was that easy to sell a second hand computer even though it's a mac! So you put a price close to that when you purchased it and somebody took it instead of going for a new one? Weird!

Believe it or not, I started the auction at 1,100. so no activity until 7-8hrs. before it ended, then within the last 30seconds to a minute went up to 1,880

 

[GamecockMac]

First post!

Thought I'd make my initial foray into MR in a thread that is partly responsible for bringing me here...

My 15" 1.67 1GB 100GB/7200 just shipped and despite how many people here might tell me I should feel about that, I can't help but be thrilled. Maybe that has something to do with the fact that I am finally trading up from a 400 mHz TiBook (that's right...rev A baby! and not one day of trouble) with 10GB drive and 384MB of RAM. The old warhorse served me well through the trials and tribulations of grad school, but it was time to move up in the world and I figured one of the last PPC Powerbooks would serve me well into the Mactel era, especially considering I have a fair amount of software already for that platform.

Just wanted to pass along thanks to all those here who helped me make an informed decision over the past few weeks of anticipation!

 

[digitalbiker]

People saying that Apple isn't a computer company anymore since they seemingly dedicated sooo much time to the iPods. Fact is, iPods sell. Period. Apple knows this, and that's why the company is strong right now. Apple also knew they had to do something to tide us over until MacTels, and I think they have done a decent job of that given what IBM has offered, or what IBM hasn't offered to be more accurate. Apple was unable to provide a great improvement in chip for the pbook b/c IBM couldn't deliver, and it would have been foolish to redesign the pbook for a different chip, isight, whatever until the Intels show up. As someone else said, let's just be thankful that Apple is strengthening itself via iPod sales to support this difficult change.🙂

I don't think you can pin this failure on IBM.

The PPC was developed by Apple, Ibm, & Motorola (AIM). Apple tried to keep it alive with Motorola and failed, Apple tried with IBM and it failed.

The principle reason the PPC architecture failed was because Apple, IBM, & Motorola didn't want to invest the ridiculous amount of money it would have required to compete with Intel. Intel had the volume sales advantage to drive R&D until they finally met and then exceeded the advantage that AIM initially had with superior original design.

It's easy for Apple to point fingers at IBM, but if the PPC was really a money maker for IBM, they would have delivered the best designed chips in the world to Apple. But Apple couldn't pay the amount of money IBM would have needed because their sales were too small when compared to Intel sales.

 

[BGil]

Apple was unable to provide a great improvement in chip for the pbook b/c IBM couldn't deliver, and it would have been foolish to redesign the pbook for a different chip, isight, whatever until the Intels show up. As someone else said, let's just be thankful that Apple is strengthening itself via iPod sales to support this difficult change.

It wouldn't be foolish. It's not like they can't make a design that works for both Mactel and PPC. The only difference is the motherboard which is custom designed anyway. They can design the Mactel mobo to be the same size and shape as the PPC mobo.
[rant]I get kind of sick of people making exuses for Apple. You just made up that senario it's not even like Apple came out and said that.
Everytime people exopect something to happen (like a new update) and it doesn't happen then people start saying "oh Apple's got some great comsumer-friendly reason to not make the update". Look at the "Widescreen iBook" thread or any of the "Update next tuesday" threads and that's what you see. Apple could not release updates (of any kind not just processors) for an entire year and people start making excuses for Apple. Let Apple make their own excuses and answer to the public about their mistakes then we might just see Apple stop acting like a bunch of prima donnas.[/rant]

 

[cookieme]

Believe it or not, I started the auction at 1,100. so no activity until 7-8hrs. before it ended, then within the last 30seconds to a minute went up to 1,880

Good 4 u although the person who bought it must have been high at the time to put it mildly 😀 BTW I've never used ebay myself but is it reliable, i.e. do u get the money before they get the pb and once u accept a bid can't they decide not to buy it? (Sorry for the stupid questions). I only own one mac and it's a G4 550MHz Pismo (maxed out) and obviously selling it on ebay and getting a new one which I will probably do cause I've waited for about 2 years asking myself what to do, is going to set me back quite a but more than $8. 😱

 

[BGil]

I don't think you can pin this failure on IBM.

The PPC was developed by Apple, Ibm, & Motorola (AIM). Apple tried to keep it alive with Motorola and failed, Apple tried with IBM and it failed.

The principle reason the PPC architecture failed was because Apple, IBM, & Motorola didn't want to invest the ridiculous amount of money it would have required to compete with Intel. Intel had the volume sales advantage to drive R&D until they finally met and then exceeded the advantage that AIM initially had with superior original design.

It's easy for Apple to point fingers at IBM, but if the PPC was really a money maker for IBM, they would have delivered the best designed chips in the world to Apple. But Apple couldn't pay the amount of money IBM would have needed because their sales were too small when compared to Intel sales.

PPC didn't fail. It's alive and well. It will continue to thrive in game consoles as well. The Xbox 360 will sell more units in the next few years than Apple could ever hope for (not to mention the PS3). Apple failed with PPC because they wouldn't sell enough machines to make it worth developing new processors specifically for Apple.

 

[~Shard~]

Ultimately though it matters how useful it is to the owner.

Who cares if the Cinebench benchmark is 50% faster if the key software that you use everyday has to run slower than your old PPC because it only runs under rosetta.

My main comcern with the Intel switch is not the speed and heat of the Intel processors but instead is how it will effect software developers. I wonder how many companies will use the x86 compatibility as an excuse not to re-write and optimize for OS X when all they have to do is tell Mac users to use WINE or VPC for OS X x86.

I know when Apple made the switch to OS X from OS 9 they lost quite a few software titles. Especially in the earth sciences, education, and gps software fields. Now a software developer doesn't even lose all of their sales to the Mac market even if they make a windows only software package. How many native OS X x86 software titles will never be released that were available for PPC OS X?

All excellent points. 😎 A lot of it does boil down to the usefulness as perceived by the user, and yes, perhaps some users will not care about technical benchmarks when rating systems, rather the state of the software they use itself.

 

[NateP]

Seeking advice

So I can get the 12 PB stock for about the same price as a BTO 14 iBook with 80G harddrive. (US$1300-1350) Any recommendations?

Or should I find a way to suck it up and get a 15 PB (which is another $400 plus about 90 in tax)? That's almost 500 more. Not sure I want to spend that much right now.

I don't have much option to wait, as my WinXP desktop-in-a-laptop is dying fast. And I am ready to Switch now.

I run the basic Office stuff plus a couple of statistical packages (R, S-Plus, Stata).

Thanks.

 

[ericschmerick]

Hi Nate -

So my take would be to spring the $400 for the 15 PB. It's a workhorse machine that you'll be happy to use stand-alone. The 12 PB has a screen resolution that's just too low.

The 14 iBook, if I recall, also just has 1024x768 resolution, which I consider too low. You get 2", but no better resolution, so as far as I'm concerned the extra size is unusable - unless you're vision is poor and you just want the larger dot pitch.

The major diff, in my opinion, between the 14" iBook and 12" PB is the display capability. If you really don't want to spring for the 15", then the 12" is still way more flexible because you can use it at home with an external monitor up to very high resoutions. Note that the iBooks can hook up to an external monitor, BUT ONLY AT 1024X768 res! So that's 15" LCD panel resolution these days. I use my 15" to drive my 24" Dell monitor at 1920x1200 and it works great (12" also supports this res).

The bump to 15" gets you a MUCH nicer screen on the laptop. If you do a bunch of work on the go, with just the laptop screen, you'll be super happy. Even spreadsheet work gains a LOT from this increased screen resolution. It also gets you gigabit ethernet vs the 12". If you have a wired home network, that will become increasingly important in the years to come (or now, depending on what you're doing). It also gets you a MUCH better video card.

Good luck with your choice.

So I can get the 12 PB stock for about the same price as a BTO 14 iBook with 80G harddrive. (US$1300-1350) Any recommendations?

Or should I find a way to suck it up and get a 15 PB (which is another $400 plus about 90 in tax)? That's almost 500 more.

I don't have much option to wait, as my WinXP desktop-in-a-laptop is dying fast. And I am ready to Switch now.

I run the basic Office stuff plus a couple of statistical packages (R, S-Plus, Stata).

Thanks.

 

[Greenone]

Thanks John!

Yeah, sure, no problem. I can see how what I wrote was a little confusing. Let me try to clarify. And I'll invite people to chirp up with their own experiences, too.

Okay, so every modern OS has some form of intelligent memory management -- and each is intelligent (or not so intelligent) in its own way. OS X behaves very differently from Windows, and both of those behave differently from Linux. There are other OSes, but since those are the big 3, that's fine.

Okay, so when you load programs, the files are copied from your hard drive into your RAM chips. That's gross oversimplification, but in essence, that's what's happening. The programs also have supplementary "junk" that they run too (in other words, it's not a fair calculation to say that Word is X MB and Photoshop is Y MB and the OS is Z MB, so you need X + Y + Z MB of RAM). And then, they have page/swap files. In essence, in OS X, you will never get a message that you are "out of memory." Your hard disk is a physical extension of your RAM -- it's just a lot slower than your RAM.

Now, here's the sucky thing about OS X memory management. It is **NOT** the case that your computer starts to use the hard drive only when it has "filled up" all of your available RAM. Not by default, anyway. (There are some creative tricks that advanced users use to change their memory management settings, and some of those are worthwhile for certain people.) OS X will always use that page file.

There are two types of operations -- pageins and pageouts. You can see these in the Activity Monitor application (I think it's there -- someone correct me if I'm forgetting the name wrong) or by opening Terminal and typing "top" or "vm_stat". Pageins are normal, you'll have a lot of them, and they aren't a problem. Pageouts suck, however. They are what makes a machine really slow, and if you have lots of pageouts, it means you've exhausted your physical RAM. A common benchmark is the ratio of pageouts to pageins: if that ratio is high, you need more RAM.

You probably know a lot of this. The problem is that the system will pageout whenever it thinks it might be beneficial -- rightly or wrongly. So, take the case of an application you haven't used in a while, but that is open. It might page it out, and load some disk cache in there. And then when you go back to it...you wait.

More memory is universally better -- I won't deny that. What I am denying is that, if you use your computer like me -- lots of apps open at once -- you'll see a huge benefit from 1.5GB over 1GB. I am sure lots of people will disagree with me, but that's my personal experience.

On the 1GB at the start versus adding 1GB chip: I bet the Genius was, in a nice way, trying to tell you that you'll likely not care at all about the difference between 1.5GB and 2.0GB. Or maybe he was saying it's a better deal -- with the Apple deal, you pay $30 more for 512MB less total RAM than the scenario you're talking about. Anyway, on 1.5GB vs 2GB: the casual user will almost never notice that. I do database work for a living, so for me, I definitely notice those differences in a big way. (My big, nice machine with 16GB is having some issues, so I'm having to do all my work on my work on a machine with 12GB and one with only 8GB -- shudder.) But for the "traditional" user, the paging described above deals with the memory smartly.

Lastly, on .Mac: tough call. Depends on how, um, lazy you are, for lack of a better word. My personal advice would be to take that $70 and apply it toward buying an external hard drive, and backing your stuff up. If you shop sales and rebates, you can easily get yourself a nice 120GB external drive for $70. .Mac has lots of perks, and of course it can make your life easier, so it's a personal choice.

Final note: shop around. If you really want a 1GB stick, I think you can get it as cheap at $110. I found one today for under $100, and it's a name brand.
Edit: here's the link to that chip. Pretty sure this is the right item, although I'd double check before ordering: http://www.zipzoomfly.com/jsp/ProductDetail.jsp?ProductCode=85016-72&affiliate=dealram

Thanks so much, John! Wow - how kind and patient you are and what a great help. Some of it is still confusing to me but it's not for lack of a good explanation on your part; I'm completely computer illiterate (fast typist at least!). My husband's a computer tech and I forwarded it to him and he'll explain any parts I don't understand, as if I were a 5 year old! 😉 I also appreciate the link, which I'll look into soon.