Last iBook Rev. Why it was so bad?

Discussion in 'PowerPC Macs' started by rjcalifornia, Aug 3, 2013.

  1. rjcalifornia macrumors 6502a

    rjcalifornia

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2012
    Location:
    El Salvador
    #1
  2. Intell macrumors P6

    Intell

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2010
    Location:
    Inside
    #2
    Apple's aim with the iBook lineup was cheap. VRAM was too expensive for it and there wasn't enough room for more cheap VRAM chips. Look at the 12" Powerbook G4, it never got past 64MB due to space constraints. There was only 1 ram slot and the onboard ram was never increased to 1GB due to space and pricing. The 12" Powerbook has a similar configuration, but it's was never increased to the 512MB built in like the iBook. The 1024x768 screen was cheap at the time and still the norm for budget computers.
     
  3. rjcalifornia thread starter macrumors 6502a

    rjcalifornia

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2012
    Location:
    El Salvador
    #3
    ok, so why not get rid of internal, allow one 2 GB RAM stick, and get a 64 MB VRAM in it?

    You could get rid also of Bluetooth and output display in order to get a better video card
     
  4. Intell macrumors P6

    Intell

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2010
    Location:
    Inside
    #4
    Not enough room for the second ram stick or addition VRAM. Video out is a core requirement as these were geared towards schools as well where video out was key at the time. Bluetooth took up so little space in those iBooks there wouldn't have been enough gain for anything but air.
     
  5. rjcalifornia thread starter macrumors 6502a

    rjcalifornia

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2012
    Location:
    El Salvador
    #5
    I know, I'm just banging my head against the wall lol I mean it is apple, they have the skills, the people and money come up with a solution. It wasn't impossible, I think. I mean, it looks like they didn't try it.

    Look at the iPod, nobody thought you could store so much music on a small device, or even the ipod nano!

    I'm just saying and thinking out loud...
     
  6. Hrududu macrumors 68020

    Hrududu

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2008
    Location:
    Central US
    #6
    It wasn't bad for an entry level computer in 2005. If you wanted more VRAM, Apple wanted you to buy a PowerBook. When you consider the CPU power on the iBook wasn't so far off of what the PowerBooks had at the time, things like VRAM, screen resolution, and RAM capacity were ways to upsell you to a PB. That Radeon 9550 actually performed pretty darn well, and sure was nice to have dedicated graphics of any sort on a consumer level computer. Its also important to keep in mind that 1.5GB of RAM wasn't so bad for a notebook back then. Mobile 64 bit chips were still a few years away, and the first generation MacBooks and MacBook Pros only held 2GB (which is what the 15 and 17 PowerBooks held in 2005).
     
  7. 666sheep macrumors 68040

    666sheep

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2009
    Location:
    Poland
    #7
    It wasn't that bad as last Mini G4. At least it had 1.5GB max RAM and CI capable GPU. Try to run 10.5 on a 1.42 mini first, next on an iBook G4 1.42 to know what I mean.
     
  8. Hrududu macrumors 68020

    Hrududu

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2008
    Location:
    Central US
    #8
    Actually the last G4 Mini was 1.5 or 1.33Ghz and came with a 64MB Radeon 9200 which was a pretty nice upgrade over the 32MB that came in the 1.25 and 1.42 original Mini. I had a 1.25 when it came out, and you're right, the thing was TERRIBLE! I remember feeling totally underwhelmed by the performance with Tiger. Even coming from a 450MHZ blue and white G3, that mini was a disappointment.
     
  9. 666sheep macrumors 68040

    666sheep

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2009
    Location:
    Poland
    #9
    ^^^Yeah, I've chosen 1.42 for comparison sake because it's almost identically spec'd as iBook from the OP. Only GPU and max RAM amount are different and it makes a hell of performance difference between these 2 models.
     
  10. Intell macrumors P6

    Intell

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2010
    Location:
    Inside
    #10
    Those poor Mac Minis, the worst machines of the G4 lineup. Beaten by the eMac, iBook, Powerbook G4, PowerMac, and the iMac G4 (if the continued producing the iMac).
     
  11. rjcalifornia thread starter macrumors 6502a

    rjcalifornia

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2012
    Location:
    El Salvador
    #11
    I guess you're right. I'm not saying it was slow, I'm just saying that it could ship with 64 MB VRAM, and come with only 512 MB by default, to keep things cheap.

    I love my iBook, I just think that with 64MB it could have been a bigger success...
     
  12. adcx64, Aug 4, 2013
    Last edited: Aug 4, 2013

    adcx64 macrumors 65816

    adcx64

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2008
    Location:
    Philadelphia
  13. 666sheep macrumors 68040

    666sheep

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2009
    Location:
    Poland
    #13
    Thinking that way 1.67 GHz CPU speed would be even bigger success... especially from financial POV. It's only few SMD resistors which cost next to nothing...:rolleyes:
    As Hrududu said, it's kinda pointless to sell 2 products for different price, aimed in different user, with only minor hardware differences.
     

Share This Page