G5 iMac?

[Nemesis]

Geez

Nemesis, I think that you've just lost all you credibility in this thread and possibly forum with posting what seems to be false information and marketing it as true, only to come back later after defending your information, say that you think Apple will mess up and that you don't think they're really going to announce anything anyway. Try and post something meaningful, not just something to grab attention, and we'll learn to regard your posts as credible, or at least educated speculation.

Lost my credibility? .. at Mac RUMORS? Y'mean, in Mac rumors, in disussions firmly based on speculation and/or hopes?
Jeezuz
I think that you people are seriously under stress.
Don't blame me, rather blame Apple for that.
Relax ...

 

[ingenious]

Lost my credibility? .. at Mac RUMORS? Y'mean, in Mac rumors, in disussions firmly based on speculation and/or hopes?
<snip>
I think that you people are seriously under stress.
Don't blame me, rather blame Apple for that.
Relax ...

Oh right..... after seriously defending your point and claiming it as TRUE, then changing it and using some generic story, I'm supposed to believe that it was all a rumor. Right..... and you say I'm under stress.

 

[thatwendigo]

Yes. I read the Macrumors news too.

Actually, I was excited about 802.15.3 some time ago, when it first surfaced as nothing more than a Page 2 rumors about an interconnect for the fabled iBox. Back then, I don't think I was posting yet, but I remember doing some readin up on it and thinking that, were wireless video to be done, you'd need at least something that fast to be streaming the content.

[quote-Calebj14]1) You misunderstood me when I said the difference between the 15" and the 17" was small and unnoticable. What i *meant* to say that the difference between the thickness of the (edit: 15"/17" and the 12"). I am a power user and that little itsy bitsy difference isn't gong to kill anyone.[/quote]

I'm not sure I know what you're saying here, since I don't know how being a "power user" has anything to do with the thickness of your laptop. For that matter, I don't know how anyone could seriously claim to be a "power user" and not be using the fastest possible machines - all of which are workstations and server-class hardware.

2) You truly believe that extra .18 (from the 17"; .17" compared to the 15") inches is awful. Yes, you can tell the difference when you compare the three laptops, but is it really that important?! The 12" is supposed to be "ultra-compact." It's not going to have the exact same deminsions as in thickness as the other two.

The dimensions of PowerBooks:
12" - 10.9" W x 8.6" D x 1.18" H and 4.6lbs
15" - 13.7" W x 9.5" D x 1.1" H and 5.7lbs
17" - 15.4" W x 10.2" D x 1.0" H and 6.9lbs

"Ultra-compact" should mean that it's smaller in all dimensions, at least in my opinion. However, it's the thickest of the line.

Thatwendigo, I usually appreciate your logical views on wish lists and items of the sort, but in response to your "throwing out the 12" PowerBook" remark, I believe you've made a mistake.

I appreciate the positive feedback, as well. A few people have spoken to me privately about it in the past, but it's always nice to have it in public, too.

Obviously there's a market, or you wouldn't be seeing many, many people on these forums and elsewhere with the 12". It's meant to be ultra-compact and full featured, and that's what Apple has made it into and, I believe, will continue to develop it to fit this description.

Market or no, you can't change that they had to make the thing a full fifth thicker than the larger laptop because of the relatively cool-running 7447A. To put a 970-derivative under the hood would require even more of a sacrifice, and that's just for the chip. No matter how much you claim there's a waiting audience, it doesn't change the facts of convection and dissipation.

Also, before when I referred to Apple's switch from the Titanium PowerBook to the Aluminum PowerBooks, I was simply pointing out that Apple has let a product skip cycles before, at least half cycles, to finish developing technology, to wait for the market to be ready, or if the current product still is selling well (someone tell me if there is another reason).

That may be, but I like to point out technical issues with what people seem to think are much more simple decisions. With the change from Titanium to Aluminum PowerBooks, there was a massive bump across the line in terms of technology, but it came only because a cooler processor could be found. In this case, Apple is working with their hottest processor in recent years, while also needing to add a hotter support system. That is the main issue behind both iMac and PowerBook revisions, in my mind, since the upgrade will require dealing with far more than just the heat of the chip.

As I pointed out, the move from 7455 to 7457 allowed a 25% increase in clock and a 50% drop in heat from the processor (1.0ghz to 1.25hz, while dropping from 25w to 10-12w). This will not be the case for a 970fx chip, which has to be clocked down 100mhz lower than the 1.5ghz MPC7457A to achieve the same heat (the 970fx at 1.4ghz is 12.3w).

 

[thatwendigo]

Lost my credibility? .. at Mac RUMORS? Y'mean, in Mac rumors, in disussions firmly based on speculation and/or hopes?
Jeezuz
I think that you people are seriously under stress.
Don't blame me, rather blame Apple for that.
Relax ...

You're the one who made hardcore, "my friend at Apple says" predictions, Nemesis. Nobody here made you log in and type those words, nor did they choose your terms for you. Speculation is one thing, but these are statements:

They will. Updates are due next week.
G5 iMac comes!

Form factor somewhat changed.
Different. Better!

new iMac will have

* detachable screen
* very similar form factor
* new processor

which means, iMac becomes a low-end G5. And more than that!

We'll have variety of screens to choose -- 15", 17" (already used in PowerBooks, so this too cuts costs down), 20" (low-end Cinema Display), and several iMac configurations. So instead of locking youself with a certain iMac and screen size, like we had in iMac G4, new iMac can be combined as we wish because new design allows screen to be detachable. So you can choose whichever screen you like. New iMac configs will no longer be based on screen size, but on processor speed.

They did that not only to give more choices to customers, but also to make transportation and productions costs down. Computer base (body) will be somewhat wider, and will change its colour.

I know for sure they've tested both 1.4 and 1.6 GHz G5 PowerBooks, and were ready to introduce them in a case Motorola screws with latest G4 updates. Yes, we'd have to wait for them at least 2 months to start producing, and that would screw up whole quarterly financial results - no PowerMacs, PowerBooks delayed, iMacs still in production preparation. With slightly modified laptops, they'll get very good quarter, despite other product delays.

You were wrong. Own up to it.

Also, it would be unfair of us to blame Apple for your rumor, now wouldn't it?

 

[Nemesis]

Khmm..

Also, it would be unfair of us to blame Apple for your rumor, now wouldn't it?

I'm not blaming Apple for not fulfilling my rumor, but "blaming" it for making rumors like this exist. But it's all part of the game - once it's rolled out, you have to accept the rules.
Well, someone's getting payed to this Wendigo.

 

[BakedBeans]

I'm not blaming Apple for not fulfilling my rumor, but "blaming" it for making rumors like this exist. But it's all part of the game - once it's rolled out, you have to accept the rules.
Well, someone's getting payed to this Wendigo.

nemesis, in my opinion your making yourself look a little silly, firstly becuase if you have got a friend at apple, you should have know that he cant really tell you anything and you should have had alarm bells ringing when he mentioned a detachable screen.. but i love rumors as much as the next, so you will never have trouble from me regarding rumors as this is a rumor forum,

EDIT: stop being so defensive, after all is said and done we all want the same things here,

 

[CmdrLaForge]

I'm not blaming Apple for not fulfilling my rumor, but "blaming" it for making rumors like this exist. But it's all part of the game - once it's rolled out, you have to accept the rules.
Well, someone's getting payed to this Wendigo.

Sorry, but your behavior is not correct. Rumors is not about lies that someone in the community made up. Rumors is about getting some facts that someone with real knowledge has. If people like you start making up noting, then the value of Macrumors is fading away.

 

[davegoody]

Unlikely Scenario

I honestly think it unlikely that a G5 based iMac will appear before Apple have refreshed the Pro lineup to be all G5 - they will not want to lose sales of the higher margin PowerMacs and Powerbooks to a G5 based iMac when the powerbooks are still at G4 generation

 

[Sped]

I honestly think it unlikely that a G5 based iMac will appear before Apple have refreshed the Pro lineup to be all G5

I disagree with you. As has been mentioned here before, it takes a considerable amount of engineering to put a new processor in the laptop form factors we have become accustomed to while not sacrificing battery life, display capability, etc. If folks in this forum can't give Apple some time to engineer G5 Powerbooks, then I'm afraid they'll never be happy. How long was the G4 available in PowerMacs before it made it into the Powerbook? On the other hand, desktops do not suffer from the serious constraints imposed upon a good laptop. Why can't Apple produce a G5 iMac before a G5 Powerbook? If it's because some pro users will get offended, then I say let them be offended and let Apple sell more computers. I would further argue that the reason the iMac stayed G3 so long was not because Apple wanted the Powerbook to be faster but because Motorola didn't produce a fast enough G4 to separate the PowerMac and iMac while still providing a competitive G4 iMac processor. Just my opinion.

 

[aussiemac86]

You're the one who made hardcore, "my friend at Apple says" predictions, Nemesis. Nobody here made you log in and type those words, nor did they choose your terms for you.
it?

Just to let everyone know, he has done this before. I think it was just prior to NAB he was absoloutely certain that new Powermacs or powerbooks, you can find the post yourselves.

But the point is that also came from "his friend at apple"

 

[aussiemac86]

i just found the post he did prior to NAB (i think). He claimed there were going to be G5 Powerbooks, but please if i am wrong and G5 powerbooks were relased but i didnt notice dont hesitate to tell me.

Not a rumor, this is the latest report that I've got from one very reliable source!
- The 17" model will utilise 1.6 GHz G5 processor!
- Top 15" model will utilise 1.4 GHz G5 processor!
- Other models, plus iBooks, will run on updated G4s ...

17" and 15" PBook case is redesigned to fit new G5.
12" model slightly redesigned too, but won't go for G5 for more than year ...

Yeah!!

 

[denm316]

I dont believe that the iMacs will be update before the PowerMAC's, the iMacs will probably get the old PowerMac speeds.

 

[cubist]

Has anyone got xbench scores for the 1.5GHz 7447A? It may not make any sense to use a 1.4GHz 970fx anyway.

 

[thatwendigo]

04-15-2004, 08:17 AM
Nemesis
macrumors member
Location: Perth Australia

Not rumor

Not a rumor, this is the latest report that I've got from one very reliable source!
- The 17" model will utilise 1.6 GHz G5 processor!
- Top 15" model will utilise 1.4 GHz G5 processor!
- Other models, plus iBooks, will run on updated G4s ...

17" and 15" PBook case is redesigned to fit new G5.
12" model slightly redesigned too, but won't go for G5 for more than year ...

Yeah!!
__________________
--
Nemesis

04-15-2004, 08:34 AM
Nemesis
macrumors member
Location: Perth Australia

iMac G5 is ready too (it utilises low speed 90nm G5, 1.4-1.8 GHz) but consumer machine will never go for a new processor before Pro machine. Stupid Apple's rule ...

So we'll have an update in PBooks now, and then come the new iMacs ...

And yes, this will be amazing year for Mac users!

04-15-2004, 08:44 AM
Nemesis
macrumors member
Location: Perth Australia

Not for low-power G5s!
IBM is producing 1.4-2.0 GHz 90nm G5s (aimed at new PBooks, new iMacs and new headless Alu Macs) and those low-end G5 models are not the issue here.

G5s running at 2.4+ GHz are problem at the moment. But the production is getting much better.

Also, remember that those 90nm G5 samples were available 10 months ago, and were used to build all protoypes of upcoming machines.

And please think about this: why on Earth would Apple waste their precious time on redesigning PowerBook cases if they're going to simply update G4s ... No, that was recognized and dismissed long ago. In the beginning, only top PBook models will have G5s, and modestly higher price mark.

2004 is a year of G5, believe it or not.
__________________
--
Nemesis

On April 18th, the NAB media event was held. This was, in fact, before NAB and from a "very reliable source." So, guy, where are those redesigned G5 PowerBook 1.6s and iMac 1.8s? It's been over a month since your source said that we had to be getting them.



And, to quote our good buddy AidanShaw in the very same thread, I'd like to point something out to you people who see 64-bit and start drooling:

64-bits refers to the size of the addresses used to find the chunks, not the chunk sizes. 64-bits lets your program deal with more than 4 billion characters, but the normal western character is still only 8 bits - the chunk size does not change.

So, 64-bits does not make it faster - you can address more chunks, but not more in the same clock cycle.

To be more correct, in fact 64-bits will be slightly to almost noticeably slower than 32-bit. Those 64-bit addresses use twice as much space in cache, and need twice as much memory bandwidth to move between RAM and cache.

Most of the time this slowdown won't be noticed, but some programs have data with a large percentage of pointers to other data. In real programs, sometimes the 64-bit version is 10% to 25% slower than the identical source code compiled in 32-bit mode.

"Almost the same speed" is a reasonable thing to say, but "faster in all respects" amounts to nothing more than a new MHz myth - try to convince the unaware that bigger is always better.

Take a look at some of these results. In the Alti-Vec tests, single processor PowerBooks and iMacs beat the single 1.6ghz G5 at fractal calcualations, the 1ghz eMac beat the single 1.6ghz G5 at disk copying, and the 1.25 and 1ghz iMacs beat all but the dual 1.8ghz.

In other words... This is not as clear cut a performance issue as some would like to think.

Has anyone got xbench scores for the 1.5GHz 7447A? It may not make any sense to use a 1.4GHz 970fx anyway.

From the xbench comparison site:
http://ladd.dyndns.org/xbench/merge.xhtml?doc1=64012
http://ladd.dyndns.org/xbench/merge.xhtml?doc1=64883
http://ladd.dyndns.org/xbench/merge.xhtml?doc1=65061
http://ladd.dyndns.org/xbench/merge.xhtml?doc1=65145

 

[segundo]

Take a look at some of these results. In the Alti-Vec tests, single processor PowerBooks and iMacs beat the single 1.6ghz G5 at fractal calcualations, the 1ghz eMac beat the single 1.6ghz G5 at disk copying, and the 1.25 and 1ghz iMacs beat all but the dual 1.8ghz.

In other words... This is not as clear cut a performance issue as some would like to think.

Whoa . . . hold up a minute. This test is highly optimized for the G4 and has not been optimized (probably not even recompiled for) the G5's. The text below the graph clearly states:

The Fractal program has been highly tuned to take advantage of the G4 and is precisely the type of work that the G4 was made for. It will also gobble up whatever processing capability is present. This is a good test for assessing the fundamental processing potential of each machine. Really highlights the processing advantage of a dual processor machines, and the G4 processor, when applications are tuned to take advantage of these features. You can download the Fractal program and run it on your own machine to compare scores. You will need to set the fractal to maximum count of 65536, to be consistent with our testing. This program has not been optimized to run on the G5 and runs comparatively slower on G5 machines.​

I'm not saying you are not making some excellent points. In fact your recent posts have been excellent. However, this particular evidence does not back up your statements very well.

 

[thatwendigo]

Whoa . . . hold up a minute. This test is highly optimized for the G4 and has not been optimized (probably not even recompiled for) the G5's. The text below the graph clearly states:

The Fractal program has been highly tuned to take advantage of the G4 and is precisely the type of work that the G4 was made for. It will also gobble up whatever processing capability is present. This is a good test for assessing the fundamental processing potential of each machine. Really highlights the processing advantage of a dual processor machines, and the G4 processor, when applications are tuned to take advantage of these features. You can download the Fractal program and run it on your own machine to compare scores. You will need to set the fractal to maximum count of 65536, to be consistent with our testing. This program has not been optimized to run on the G5 and runs comparatively slower on G5 machines.​

I'm not saying you are not making some excellent points. In fact your recent posts have been excellent. However, this particular evidence does not back up your statements very well.

Heheh... Um, oops? This is what I get for posting before I'm fully awake.

 

[pjkelnhofer]

Whoa . . . hold up a minute. This test is highly optimized for the G4 and has not been optimized (probably not even recompiled for) the G5's. The text below the graph clearly states:

The Fractal program has been highly tuned to take advantage of the G4 and is precisely the type of work that the G4 was made for. It will also gobble up whatever processing capability is present. This is a good test for assessing the fundamental processing potential of each machine. Really highlights the processing advantage of a dual processor machines, and the G4 processor, when applications are tuned to take advantage of these features. You can download the Fractal program and run it on your own machine to compare scores. You will need to set the fractal to maximum count of 65536, to be consistent with our testing. This program has not been optimized to run on the G5 and runs comparatively slower on G5 machines.​

I'm not saying you are not making some excellent points. In fact your recent posts have been excellent. However, this particular evidence does not back up your statements very well.

It brings up an excellent point: with the software you have on your computer right now, a 1.5 G4 will probably beat a 1.4 G5 simply because it was written to run on G4. However, in a year when the amount of G5 optimized software has dramatically increased, the slightly slower (MHz wise) G5 will most likely smoke the G4 (if it can even run the G5 stuff).

So the question becomes would you rather have a slightly faster machine today that needs to be replaced in a year or two or a slightly slower machine today that will last you 2 to 3 times as long.

And, don't say that any computer will need to be replaced in two years. I have a four year old CRT iMac that I plan to hang on to for at least another year (until there is a reasonably priced all-in-one G5 Mac), and before that I had a IIx for over seven years (and I bought that used!).

ps. A really good test that I would like to see is G4 optimized FCP and DVD SP tests on a 1.5 GHz vs. the same programs optimized for G5 on a single 1.6 GHz. That would let us know what is truly faster

 

[ingenious]

[quote-Calebj14]I'm not sure I know what you're saying here, since I don't know how being a "power user" has anything to do with the thickness of your laptop. For that matter, I don't know how anyone could seriously claim to be a "power user" and not be using the fastest possible machines - all of which are workstations and server-class hardware.

Good Point. I guess what I meant that I used my machine to the max possible, but you're right.

The dimensions of PowerBooks:
12" - 10.9" W x 8.6" D x 1.18" H and 4.6lbs
15" - 13.7" W x 9.5" D x 1.1" H and 5.7lbs
17" - 15.4" W x 10.2" D x 1.0" H and 6.9lbs

"Ultra-compact" should mean that it's smaller in all dimensions, at least in my opinion. However, it's the thickest of the line.

Hmm. I interpreted ultra-compact as a smaller size, not a lesser thickness, but I can see where you're coming from. Yes, it is the thickest, but only by .17/.18 of an inch. That's not really that much to the average user. I am not the average user, more above that, but obvously, from your extremely techinical posts, I'm not up anywhere close to your level

Market or no, you can't change that they had to make the thing a full fifth thicker than the larger laptop because of the relatively cool-running 7447A. To put a 970-derivative under the hood would require even more of a sacrifice, and that's just for the chip. No matter how much you claim there's a waiting audience, it doesn't change the facts of convection and dissipation.

As I've stated above (this might be interpreted as me changing viewpoints, but it's all relative), the average user or the average user who would purchase a 12" obviously don't care about this little bit of an inch. As for me, I personally like the 12" and for right now, it has *just enough* power for me. Gulp, I'm not used to so much screen real estate on the 15".

 

[pjkelnhofer]

The dimensions of PowerBooks:
12" - 10.9" W x 8.6" D x 1.18" H and 4.6lbs
15" - 13.7" W x 9.5" D x 1.1" H and 5.7lbs
17" - 15.4" W x 10.2" D x 1.0" H and 6.9lbs

"Ultra-compact" should mean that it's smaller in all dimensions, at least in my opinion. However, it's the thickest of the line.

I think this is really nit-picking.
Look at it this way:
12" - 111 cubic inches
15" - 143 cubic inches
17" - 157 cubic inches

So the 12" model is 30% smaller and 33% lighter than 17".
And 22% smaller and 20% lighter than the 15' (which is availible with the same processer).

Seems ultra-compact to me.

The innards of the three models are essiantially the same (different video card and firewire 800 withstanding) so how would propose they fit it into a smaller footprint without making it thicker?

 

[thatwendigo]

Hmm. I interpreted ultra-compact as a smaller size, not a lesser thickness, but I can see where you're coming from. Yes, it is the thickest, but only by .17/.18 of an inch. That's not really that much to the average user. I am not the average user, more above that, but obvously, from your extremely techinical posts, I'm not up anywhere close to your level

Actually, I'm probably an "average user" in terms of what I do most with my machines - web, chatting, email, and gaming. My needs are hardly excessive, but the difference is that I read up on these things before I post about them. Sometimes I make goofs and get something twisted around, I honestly do make an effort to be sure that I present the fairest, most straightforward information I can. When something is merely my opinion, I endeavor to label it as such.

That's the big difference, really. I know the market and what's going on in more than one segment, and all it takes a little Google-fu and a little reading now and then.

I think this is really nit-picking.
Look at it this way:
12" - 111 cubic inches
15" - 143 cubic inches
17" - 157 cubic inches

Go back a page. I did that already, then changed to the dimensions.

That being said, both measures are important to understanding just what's going on with the laptop line. Yes, the smaller units are thicker than the 17" PowerBook, but that ought to tell you something. The 12" 1.0ghz machine was running an MPC7455 at 867mhz and around 20w of heat, but was boosted to an MPC7457 1.0ghz and a heat cost of roughly 12w, and now has an MPC7447A 1.33ghz at the same heat cost. The reason they can keep bumping it is that Motorola measurably improved the chip, not because of some inherent ability to cool the design.

So the 12" model is 30% smaller and 33% lighter than 17".
And 22% smaller and 20% lighter than the 15' (which is availible with the same processer).

This is only possible because a G4 was released that could fit in with that clockspeed, not because of anything else.

The innards of the three models are essiantially the same (different video card and firewire 800 withstanding) so how would propose they fit it into a smaller footprint without making it thicker?

As I noted, I think that the 12" needs to be killed. I don't know where you're getting this idea that I think that the smallest PowerBook should be updated, since I never said that. I think it needs to die, just like the iMac, in favor of designs that would be more competitive on outright speed. We need the e600 2.0ghz dual-core, 400mhz FSB, 128-bit AltiVec chip, because it's a dual-processor chip that would compete handily with the G5 at a much more favorable heat profile (20-ish watts for two processors, rather than 20-ish watts for one, lower-clocked processor).

 

[sjk]

It brings up an excellent point: with the software you have on your computer right now, a 1.5 G4 will probably beat a 1.4 G5 simply because it was written to run on G4. However, in a year when the amount of G5 optimized software has dramatically increased, the slightly slower (MHz wise) G5 will most likely smoke the G4 (if it can even run the G5 stuff).

(emphasis added)

That's an interesting thought if, for example, Apple were considering to use a Freescale chip in a future PowerBook instead of a G5. Obviously it's easier optimizing for a single architecture but I wonder how much of an advantage that really is and if it matters at all for future system design choices. Assuming chip availability, even if it turned out that Freescale-optimized software could outperform G5-optimized software would Apple be committed to using G5s for compatibility (and other?) reasons?

Or, is software that's optimized for specific architectures most often in a specialized, high performance niche where multiple architecture support is usually irrelevant? That's my impression of how it is right now. And the few "mainstream" apps that can benefit most from optimizations eventually get them regardless of how many architectures are supported (e.g. Photoshop).

Of course are periods of time when both single and multiple architecture products have spanned the product line. Even if there were a temporary G5 unification it probably wouldn't last long but whether or not Apple is intending to do that remains an open question. Just because Jobs makes statements of commitment to the G5 roadmap doesn't imply exclusion of alternatives...

... and some of the architecture discussions (especially when littered with frivilous "G5 PowerBooks yesterday!" comments) got me thinking there's risk of creating a Mac-style "megahertz myth" surrounding the G5 vs. other architectures. The interjection of alternatives such as Freescale has been a positively provocative distraction from that myopically and dangerously speculative trajectory.

 

[ingenious]

I think this is really nit-picking.
Look at it this way:
12" - 111 cubic inches
15" - 143 cubic inches
17" - 157 cubic inches

So the 12" model is 30% smaller and 33% lighter than 17".
And 22% smaller and 20% lighter than the 15' (which is availible with the same processer).

Seems ultra-compact to me.

The innards of the three models are essiantially the same (different video card and firewire 800 withstanding) so how would propose they fit it into a smaller footprint without making it thicker?

*That* is the point I've been trying to make. I'm glad someone agrees with me.

edit: The 12" model is ultracompact in deminsions, just not the ones that thatwendigo is talking about. The 12" only weighs 4.6 lbs, while the 15" weighs 5.7 lbs. and the 17" weighs a whopping 6.9 lbs! Also, I believe that the slot loading drive on the side is much more accessible when using a PB on a desk... having to load a disk in the front just doesn't appeal to me. Same with the ports being on the side. Who really likes to reach behind the laptop instead of just on the side?

 

[sjk]

As I noted, I think that the 12" needs to be killed. I don't know where you're getting this idea that I think that the smallest PowerBook should be updated, since I never said that. I think it needs to die, just like the iMac, in favor of designs that would be more competitive on outright speed.

Does Apple need to sustain a product like the 12" PowerBook with a "professional" image to avoid losing sales to comparable "small, light, thin" PC notebooks? Yet, unlike the latter, Apple doesn't offer any notebook without a built-in CD/DVD drive so maybe that's not even a fair comparison. Anyway, I'm wondering how "killing the 12" PB" might relate. Regardless of its price/performance value people do seem satisfied with it.

Personally, I'd only buy a 12" PB if it had a >1024x768 display. Otherwise I'd be satisfied with a 12" iBook. Unlike Calebj14 )), I was desperate for higher resolution for short-term "serious" work so I bought an eMac to complement my late 2001 G3 iBook (which, alas, doesn't support the monitor spanning hack or QE). The somewhat "fuzzy" CRT display (@1280x960) and fan hum (a friend's Toshiba A35 notebook fan is more irritating) are its only minor drawbacks which the speed and higher res easily compensate for. $199 for a 1GB DIMM from transintl.com with Samsung chips would be hard to beat and 1.5GB total RAM is really sweeeet! Adding that much memory to an iMac without voiding warranty or AppleCare is significantly pricier. No regrets with this system... it's the nicest I've owned.

 

[Rogan Schlassa]

not for a while

i belive the imac would be to small for a g5...wont see it for a while

 

[thatwendigo]

That's an interesting thought if, for example, Apple were considering to use a Freescale chip in a future PowerBook instead of a G5. Obviously it's easier optimizing for a single architecture but I wonder how much of an advantage that really is and if it matters at all for future system design choices. Assuming chip availability, even if it turned out that Freescale-optimized software could outperform G5-optimized software would Apple be committed to using G5s for compatibility (and other?) reasons?

Is it really easier to optimize for a single architecture, when one would have to be subject to more power restrictions than the other? The G5's strength is in running full-bore, all channels wide open, which it would be difficult to do from both a heat and power supply standpoint in a laptop. As such, there's probably only so much that optimization can do for it in the setting of a portable design, and that means that Apple could very well be better off with a chip that's less heat and power intensive.

There are a few reasons that Apple might be committed to the G5, and they range from the economic (cuts in price from IBM if Apple share the research burden) to marketing ("It's the G5! It's one higher than the G4! Look!"). I'd like to believe that Jobs and company would follow the most technologically sound path, but that isn't always the highest concern.

We'll see sometime soon.

Or, is software that's optimized for specific architectures most often in a specialized, high performance niche where multiple architecture support is usually irrelevant? That's my impression of how it is right now. And the few "mainstream" apps that can benefit most from optimizations eventually get them regardless of how many architectures are supported (e.g. Photoshop).

Here's a question for the people who like to harp on optimization for the chips... Why would it matter, as long as Apple is using a compiler that is intended for portability across architectures? The GCC libraries are intended to allow code to be moved across processors as easily as possible, not to achieve greater performance on a single line of chips. If they were truly serious about 970-based optimizations, then the IBM XCC compilers would be in use, because those tools provide a boost by their vary nature - they were built for the PowerPC and the 970 series of chips.

Of course are periods of time when both single and multiple architecture products have spanned the product line. Even if there were a temporary G5 unification it probably wouldn't last long but whether or not Apple is intending to do that remains an open question. Just because Jobs makes statements of commitment to the G5 roadmap doesn't imply exclusion of alternatives...

In recent Apple history, heterogeneous chip lines have been the rule, not the exception. We moved a generation recently, from the IBM750/MPC74xx pairing to the MPC74xx/IBM970 pairing, and I fully expect at least one more addition and/or replacement within the next year. The 975 or 980 chips are coming, and when they do, I expect them to replace the 970 in the desktop and server line, with portables hinging on their power management characteristics and the offerings from FreeScale.

... and some of the architecture discussions (especially when littered with frivilous "G5 PowerBooks yesterday!" comments) got me thinking there's risk of creating a Mac-style "megahertz myth" surrounding the G5 vs. other architectures. The interjection of alternatives such as Freescale has been a positively provocative distraction from that myopically and dangerously speculative trajectory.

There's no risk, because it's already happened. Just look at the numerous posts that just baldly state "put a G5 in and it will be so much faster!"

The 12" model is ultracompact in deminsions, just not the ones that thatwendigo is talking about. The 12" only weighs 4.6 lbs, while the 15" weighs 5.7 lbs. and the 17" weighs a whopping 6.9 lbs!

No, this is ultracompact,. It's 4.9" x 3.4" x .9" and a svelte 14 ounces. The display is 800x400 native WVGA, with an optional external video link to another, larger display, FireWire 400, 802.11b. headphone jacks, pen input, removable battery (2-6 hour life), a docking station (USB 2.0, FireWire, Ethernet, DC power, Audio Out). The HD has an autodetect for when it falls, so that the platters park to prevent head crash. The screen slides to reveal a keyboard beneath, and a smart light-detector keeps the backlight at a steady level based on your environment.

The reason I won't use one: It runs Windows.

Were Apple to offer something like this, I would sell my laptop and desktop and buy one, along with an external FireWire drive and an LCD to use at home. It's so close to what I consider the perfect ideal for modern computing that I would gladly pay PowerBook prices for one, G4 or not.

So, I give you my true wish for what Apple ought to replace the iMac with:

Apple iMac II
1.5ghz FreeScale MPC7447A or 2.0ghz single-core e600/VX
896x600 WXGA LCD
512 MB PC2700 RAM (expandable to 2GB)
40GB 7200 RPM shock-mounted drive
802.11g
BlueTooth
FireWire 400 & 800 (1 port each)
USB 2.0 (1 port)
3.5mm audio out jack
Built-in mic
Pen entry
Lithium polymer battery (3-4 hours of life)
6" x 4" x 1" and less than 2 pounds

Docking Station
2x 3.5" bays with SATA controller (1 80GB drive installed)
1x IDE optical (1 8x SuperDrive installed)
AGP 8x and/or PCI-Extreme to drive external monitor (Radeon 9800 Pro 128MB installed)
4 USB 2.0
2 FireWire 400
2 FireWire 800
ADC & DVI connectors
Built-in 802.11g transmitter
Gigabit Ethernet
Charging Cradle/Interface Dock
1' x 2' x 6"

Total cost: $1,500-2,000 base model, with BTO options.

The docking station would hold the screen up so that the unit is usable in that mode, or you can press a button to close it down and output all video to the external monitor. The interface would be a modified version of rackmount C-PCI blade backplanes, which allow incredible, hot-swappable I/O speeds and power throughput. It wouldn't increase overhead on the portable unit because all it needs is the pathways to allow transfer, since power and controllers would be on the dock and not in it.