Dual G4 PowerBooks?

[SiliconAddict]

Re: Dual G4 PowerBooks?

Originally posted by Macrumors
Appleinsider claims that dual G4 PowerBooks may "see the light of day" if the G5 is unable to be incorporated into the current PowerBook chassis in a reasonable timeframe.

According to the rumor site, Apple is working with Cooligy and is shooting for a May 2004 G5 PowerBook release.

OK here is what I read:
blah blah blah blah blah PowerBooks blah "blah blah blah blah blah" blah blah G5 blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah PowerBook blah blah blah blah blah.

blah blah blah blah blah, blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah G5 PowerBook release.

Translation. WOO HOO!!

 

[1macker1]

I said this would happen a while ago, and now that i think about it, who needs that type of power in a laptop. Aren't laptops suppose to be for light use. A PB G4 seems to be pretty powerful, why make it a dual.

 

[leet1]

Originally posted by 1macker1
Aren't laptops suppose to be for light use.

Nope, the slow speeds of the Apple laptops have gotten you to think like this

 

[stoid]

Originally posted by 1macker1
I said this would happen a while ago, and now that i think about it, who needs that type of power in a laptop. Aren't laptops suppose to be for light use. A PB G4 seems to be pretty powerful, why make it a dual.

While I think that a dual laptop would be silly, and have the battery life of half an hour, I would not think it a bad thing. I am a college student and my only computer is a 15 inch AluBook. Being able to get a little more power out of it while it's on the desk in the dorm might be nice.

 

[cubist]

Originally posted by themadchemist
... was it with the pb 100?, with laptops catching on the fire and the like. ...

I think it was the 5300, which was the PowerPC version of the 520. The 520 should have been a mature design too, except it used the so-called "intelligent batteries". The 5300 used a new kind of battery, and that's what lead to its rather creative failure modes. The new processor wasn't at fault.

The problems people are having with the new PB 15" aren't processor-related either. And nobody seems to be having any trouble with the G5 towers, other than not being able to run VPC. (Maybe Bochs will run fast enough on that beast anyway?)

The lesson we should learn is don't change too many things at once...

 

[macphoria]

This would be great. A portable oven. I could make breakfast on the road. Put some eggs and toast on the palmrest/grill and set the oven to video-render/Photoshop-filter and breakfast is served!

 

[Edot]

Analyst Meeing

Originally posted by JoE950
they already said osx is able to run on intel and amd, why not go with one of those instead of trying to double up on crappy G4s?

Steve did say it was pretty easy to run OS X on Intel, AMD, or whatever. HOWEVER, he also said that the PowerPC roadmap looks really really good! Apple knows what IBM is going to deliver in the future, and with the results of the G5, I think it is going to be impressive. They just have to wait out the G4's. Spending money to change architectures doesn't seem like the right choice with IBM pumping out "really really good" processors.

 

[JoE950]

Originally posted by themadchemist
WHO said that? It takes a lot to build an OS to run on an entirely different platform like that. It's not just like you recompile for x86 and viola! there it goes.

Anyway, it would be ridiculous on Apple's part to put an Intel or an AMD processor in its computers, from a marketing perspective. Apple has spend a great deal of time and money stating that the PowerPC architecture is inherently better than the x86 architecture (this is an argument that I would agree with, from various reading I've done about the two architectures). Apple's statement is one that has been gaining momentum with the great performance of the G5. To switch to an x86 for just the laptop line would be to indirectly state a preference of Intel/AMD over IBM processors. That would be a horrific move!

It's probably also not a good idea to diversify your line SO MUCH as to have different companies designing processors for your different lines.

Plus, Intel sucks. AMD's good, but in the long term, I'm a PPC fan, just based on its philosophy for architecture: Simplicity & efficiency.

you missed my point, amd and intel have stuff ready to go that kicks the g4s ass. it seems to be a honest stand in untill the G5 is ready. and um apple already has two different processor vendors, so whats a third matter? dont hit me with marketing bs.. its poor marketing to throw two inferior processors into an already steaming hot laptop.

 

[LimeLite]

Originally posted by themadchemist
WHO said that? It takes a lot to build an OS to run on an entirely different platform like that. It's not just like you recompile for x86 and viola! there it goes.

Steve Jobs recently said himself that OS X would could run on any processor out there, but they've seen the roadmap for the PowerPC and they're happy with where it's headed.

 

[shadowfax]

man, just when you thought they'd realize apple would never do something like this, speculation comes again... on the front page.

it won't happen. if you want a dual G4 system, buy 2 powerbooks.

 

[~Shard~]

I don't know about this...

I don’t really care for the idea of dual G4 PowerBooks. To me, laptops are supposed to be light, compact and not workhorses (although I know some people use them for that regardless!) Therefore, having dual processors in a tower, sure, that makes sense, but in a laptop, it seems kind of silly. Plus, if they’re doing this just to get by until the G5 can go into the PowerBooks, wouldn’t this be a slightly expensive endeavor? They would have to re-engineer everything, and for what, 6 months of use until the G5 PBs came out, and a brand new re-engineering effort?

My other concerns are over heat and battery life. I'm sure this thing would melt your lap! Hmm, maybe Apple can make the bottom of the laptop a grill so that you can flip it over and fry some bacon and eggs! But as far as battery life goes, I can’t see how this thing would run for too long with 2 G4s sucking all that power. Plus, isn’t a laptop supposed to be portable? – because it’s hard to be when you can only go half an hour before needing to recharge it. That kind of defeats the whole purpose.

Although I think a DP laptop is a interesting idea, I don’t know if it makes a hell of a lot of sense...

 

[themadchemist]

Originally posted by cubist
I think it was the 5300, which was the PowerPC version of the 520. The 520 should have been a mature design too, except it used the so-called "intelligent batteries". The 5300 used a new kind of battery, and that's what lead to its rather creative failure modes. The new processor wasn't at fault.

The problems people are having with the new PB 15" aren't processor-related either. And nobody seems to be having any trouble with the G5 towers, other than not being able to run VPC. (Maybe Bochs will run fast enough on that beast anyway?)

The lesson we should learn is don't change too many things at once...

Thanks for the history...Yeah, I was probably around 8 then, so my knowledge & memory of the situation is not terribly detailed.

From my experience, the desktops have never been TOO problematic. And I wouldn't really expect many problems with a PB 15" G4, after all this time that the G4 has been in laptops, even those with a smaller enclosure.

In general, though, hasn't Apple had problems with their lappies whenever a new processor generation is introduced into them? Perhaps they haven't been problems with the processor alone, but it is possible that placing a lot of attention into the implementation of the new processor could lead to oversights in other important aspects of design.

 

[swissmann]

I had a dual 500 G4 tower and an 800 MHz G4 iMac. The dual processor machine was way faster and more functional, not just marginally so. I also had a 667 TiBook which was slower than both of course. From my experience I would rather have 2 processors each at half the speed than one fast processor. I'd probably buy a dual 1 GHz 17 inch G4 over a Single 2 GHz G5 laptop. 2 processors seem to work well with multitasking, which is something I do all the time. By the way when I had my TiBook, 90% of the time it was plugged in the other 10% of the time it was on the road for selling. Battery life wasn't that big of a deal for me like it would be for a college student. Ideally I would like to see a dual processor G5 laptop. I love my Dual 2 GHz G5 tower. I'm not talking about practicality just what I would like.

 

[iMeowbot]

Originally posted by themadchemist
I would have thought that 2 G4's would give off more heat than 1 G5. Ah, well, I guess not.

Motorola's dual-core G4 is supposed to appear some time in 2004, and it's also supposed to use a bit less power than the 7457. A little more here. Assuming it's not vaporware, this part might be really nice in a PB.

 

[1macker1]

I'd want to see one just for the price drop in the single processor PB

 

[primalman]

Originally posted by JoE950
you missed my point, amd and intel have stuff ready to go that kicks the g4s ass. it seems to be a honest stand in untill the G5 is ready. and um apple already has two different processor vendors, so whats a third matter? dont hit me with marketing bs.. its poor marketing to throw two inferior processors into an already steaming hot laptop.

The third matters because you are talking a complete architecture change. No Mac application would run on this thing, not without a complete rewrite. That ain't gonna happen, no matter what any newbie says.

No way. Stupid, stupid, stupid idea.

Did I say stupid?

 

[areyouwishing]

i just don't think apple will do this. It will bastardize the apple laptop as we know it today.

Im sitting here typing this on a 1ghz 12" that i do most my graphic design on now, hook it up to an external monitor and i swear you wouldn't know you are using a laptop...although i wish the video card was 64mb. I consider myself a demanding user and this thing has not fallen short once...ok maybe dual displays with editing video.

If apple came out with a dualie laptop they would basically be saying to the world, "we can't make fast enough processors, so we stuck another on in there for ya, by the way, you can get 15 minutes of estimated battery time when not plugged in."

 

[Awimoway]

The very fact that iBooks have gone G4 is a good indication that Powerbooks will make the G5 jump soon enough.

I mean, there's just no other option. Sooner or later, the Powerbooks HAVE to move past the G4. Going dualie instead of G5 seems like a rather boneheaded procrastination move to me. I'm not saying it would never happen, but it strikes me as kind of silly.

 

[applekid]

Originally posted by fussball
am I the only one underwhelmed by the idea of a dual processor laptop? It just seems like trying to make up for having a deficient processor in the first place. In desktops it makes more sense, but for laptops, being compact is the whole idea and putting in a 2nd proc. defeats the purpose. Just my .02 I guess

Nope.

Remember the PowerMac G4's with 400 Mhz to (I think) 733 MHz? There was like 5 models for the different CPUs. Next release were dual G4's of all of those to make them actually look like they're speed demons. This was about when Moto screwed Apple's G4 line. Talk about a mess.

But, Apple has been very slow to update PB's. Unless the next PB has G4's at or greater than 1.42 Ghz, top of the line-wise, then I don't think we should worry too much. It'd be like one last breath before we go G5.

 

[spinner]

I personally feel that any R&D money that they put into a dual G4 PB will be a complete waste. The G5 is the future and the sooner its in the PB the better. I really hope they don't put any money or manpower into this just for bragging rights.

 

[dongmin]

Originally posted by iMeowbot
Motorola's dual-core G4 is supposed to appear some time in 2004, and it's also supposed to use a bit less power than the 7457. A little more here. Assuming it's not vaporware, this part might be really nice in a PB.

uhh, the Register predicted that Apple was gonna release a Moto-based G5 two Januaries ago. In another words, don't believe a single prediction that the Register makes, especially regarding a Moto processor.

as for 7447's power consumption, it's supposed to draw less than 10 W at 1.0 ghz. If I remember correctly the old TiBook had a 7455 (7445?) that drew 16-20 W at 1.0 ghz.

So from a power point of view, two low-voltage 7447s might not be much more than what they had before. This could be even more manageable if they had power-saving features that controlled the usage of the second processor. Imagine: on the road, with just one processor, you get 6-7 hours battery life; when you're at the office, you can crank along at dual 1.0 ghz. Not a bad compromise, if you ask me.

 

[JoE950]

Originally posted by primalman
The third matters because you are talking a complete architecture change. No Mac application would run on this thing, not without a complete rewrite. That ain't gonna happen, no matter what any newbie says.

No way. Stupid, stupid, stupid idea.

Did I say stupid?

where do you get this crap. they wouldnt have even considered the processors if they wouldnt run the apps... they specifically stated that osx (undoubtedly including all the apps supported excluding vpc) would run on that architecture, but they chose ibm.. please dont exaggerate and lie, its not becoming...

 

[primalman]

Originally posted by JoE950
where do you get this crap. they wouldnt have even considered the processors if they wouldnt run the apps... they specifically stated that osx (undoubtedly including all the apps supported excluding vpc) would run on that architecture, but they chose ibm.. please dont exaggerate and lie, its not becoming...

Do you really think that PhotoShop for the x86 and PhotoShop for PPC are the same peice of software? No, they are not, completely different hardware interaction layer. And then some.

Yes, Steve did say that they could [not would, mind you] get OS X to run on x86 without a lot of trial, but he was talking about OS X only. He has no say or control over how app makers would port, or even if they would even try, which would be a near impossibility [to get the company to do it] for anything but a hobby app.

This is not an exageration. An exageration is thinking that Apple can slap a x86 processor into a PowerBook and all the apps will run and all the speed 'issues' would be solved.

 

[-hh]

Originally posted by the_dalex
I would be surprised to see a dual G4 in a laptop mainly because it would be a lot of expensive re-engineering for a small market for a short period of time...

It wouldn't be that expensive if the DP was pre-planned. For example, consider the PowerMac 1.8GHz G5: the empty space for a 2nd G5 is there and waiting.

Thus said, I would have to say that the odds are probably just about even between the 17" and the 15" for which one goes DP. The 17" should be easier (case volume), but the 15 is at least in theory the newest design (thus, more likely that they thought about it during the design).

Imagine if they created a dual-1.25 Ghz Powerbook and it wasn't much faster than Intel's 1.7Ghz Pentium M... that would really not look good, taking two chips to do what one does. Apple is already behind in laptop performance, and if they want to make a major performance offering they are going to have to wait for a way to build a G5 PB. They should just lay low with another performance step next year, then go to the G5. A dual G4 PB would be anticlamactic and not representative of the direction Apple is headed.

A good point, but by the same token, they need to do something to keep "refreshing" the product line and keep it relevent. Particularly as the G4 continues to be out of gas for speedbumps, if you're going to raise up the bottom end, the upper end also needs "something". The alternative is to chop prices, and I don't think that we're going to see a 12" SuperDrive BP for $599...


-hh

 

[montecristo]

Only in an emergency...

The way I read the AppleInsider blurb was that May 2004 is the target for a G5 PB release. If they can't make this deadline (give or take a month, my guess) then they will be ready to roll with a dual G4 PB. They would not do a dual G4 PB if a G5 PB is in the reasonable horizon; they would do it only in a dire emergency, like if the colling technology doesn't get approved by UL (which could conceivably set everything back to the drawing board -- yikes, another 6 months! ). Either way, it seems like May 2004 is the target for the next PB release/update.