Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
New iBook and Mac mini Part Numbers?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
i think it is a little harder for apple to actually design it than it is for you to do a quick 5 minute photoshop job. the audio jacks up top are way too close together to be possible. and i am thinking that security jack will take up too much space as well. they pushed it making it so small. they should have made it a tiny bit bigger, and it would have been 10 times easier for them to improve on itRavenflight said:Oh I don't know, I think this might work....
Let's not get our hopes too sky high. Then, when the iBook/Mac Mini update comes out we won't be disappointed.
Anyone read notebookreview.com? They run this benchmark called SuperPi. I tried it on my 12" 1.5 GHz PowerBook G4 and got 2 minutes 40 seconds to calculate pi to 2 million digits. I don't think that would be too far behind a 1.5 GHz Pentium M (400 MHz FSB). I still think the G4 has some life left to be used in Apple laptops. They just need to find out how to make it run cooler, if that's even possible. My fan is pretty noisy and my PowerBook runs hot, although not as hot as the original (867 MHz) 12-inch version.
Anyone read notebookreview.com? They run this benchmark called SuperPi. I tried it on my 12" 1.5 GHz PowerBook G4 and got 2 minutes 40 seconds to calculate pi to 2 million digits. I don't think that would be too far behind a 1.5 GHz Pentium M (400 MHz FSB). I still think the G4 has some life left to be used in Apple laptops. They just need to find out how to make it run cooler, if that's even possible. My fan is pretty noisy and my PowerBook runs hot, although not as hot as the original (867 MHz) 12-inch version.
MikeLord said:
Here you are: http://www.colorwarepc.com/content.aspx?id=19
Also available in a dozen other colors, and you can gave it on iBooks, PowerBooks, iPods, iMacs, and the Mac mini.
and amazingly those 2 512s are contained on only one RAM module, which fit (surprisingly) into only one RAM slot.virus1 said:
Well as long as they give these machines a 64meg video card, more hdd space, and 512 RAM base...
tikibangout said:
1984 said:
i was shocked while I saw VAIO type A 17" notebook have the same resolution as our 23 inch cinema HD display. Basically along the line Apple powerbook / iBook displays are of too low resolution.
I am not sure if they are considering minimum font size in menubar that could be easily read...but for this issue, M$WinDows can customize the size and get solved.
2560 x 1600 would never be practical. Im sure you don't need it in a 12 inch LCD. However, a reasonable increase in resolution would be nice and welcomed.
Yeah, I don't believe we will see a wide-screen iBook next week. Apple will double the included RAM, increase the Ghz slightly and *please* upgrade the graphics card to a Tiger core graphics compatible one. I would like a better screen though!MacSA said:
$MacUser$ said:
The 7448 is pin compatible with the 7447A. It also uses a lot less power, however its smaller die size may mean that per square mm it is hotter. However the overall amount of heat will be less.
The Intel announcement was very recently. I'm sure that Apple put a lot of work into new formfactors already before it happened, so I don't see why they couldn't release a new formfactor with this newer processor.
All graphics cards are compatible with Core Image. It's a myth that you need a certain level of support to use Core Image.Swissfondue said:
What I think you meant to say is that you'd like the graphics card to be powerful enough to run Core Image transformations directly on the GPU, rather than fall back to the (currently faster) CPU.
alexf said:
But IBM's low power G5s are only 1.6Ghz top. The 7448 G4 will outperform the G5 as it runs faster than 1.6 and uses less power. The 200Mhz FSB on the 7448 is ok for a laptop and you won't see that much of a drop from the faster G5 FSB in typical use. G4 has shorter pipelines, 7448 has a 1MB L2 cache, faster AltiVec. A low power G5 is likely to have the FSB cut back to 1/3rd or 1/4 of the CPU speed.
Secondly, Apple's G5 system controller has quite severe problems making disk access on a G5 slower than a G4. The current eMac and Powerbooks beat the PowerMacs in real world disk tests.
Even if they've already designed the G5 laptop it may cost them more in production for a Rev A short lived product than whatever Rev we're up to in the G4 PowerBook line. Do they really want to do that before coming out with another Rev A Intel laptop? I'm not sure that makes any commercial sense. Other than us geeks, most laptop buyers just look at the Mhz, not if it's G4 or G5.
If IBM had come up with 2.0Ghz low power G5s then I could see your point, but they didn't.
aegisdesign said:
Whilst I agree that the G5 won't make it into a laptop in its current form, I do think that IBM could provide Apple with faster than official G5 processors if Apple wanted them.
The G5 is very good for a 65mm^2 processor. Shame they didn't up the cache to 1MB for the FX revision, that would be around 90mm^2. The dual-core G5 will be around 180mm^2 I suppose.
stephenli said:
All of Apple's laptop fall behind in terms of resolution compared to PC laptops. The 12" is ok, but PC widescreen 12" are like 1280x800. The 15" and 17" are a joke in resolution department. PC laptops go as high as 1920x1200 on the 15" and 17". You can get a Dell with this resolution for less then half the cost of a Powerbook. Apple needs to step up its Powerbook line up back into the professional segment.
virus1 said:
There's only one RAM slot in the Mac mini.
(Photo)
Also, RAM slots can't be "too small to support 1GB sticks" (it's an electronical thing, not physical).
And last, my own Mac mini has a single 1GB RAM stick that I installed myself.
I don't know why you're saying such things and presenting them as "facts".
Unless there's an incredible upgrade on the Mac mini (especially with the 1GB RAM and 80GB/5400RPM HD upgrades I've done and the M9-DX on top of that), I'm not upgrading mine. Core Image? Bleh, I find that widget splash thing rather annoying on my 12" PowerBook.
The new iBooks could be good enough for me to sell my 12" PowerBook though (all depends on the new features). Will the iBooks get 167MHz FSB? A better GPU with 64MB VRAM? Higher resolution than 1024x768? Smaller size? SuperDrive option? 5400RPM HDs as standard? 512MB as standard?
My 12" PowerBook may be nice, but it could be up for sale next week (especially if I can actually gain money by selling it to buy a new iBook).
The new iBooks could be good enough for me to sell my 12" PowerBook though (all depends on the new features). Will the iBooks get 167MHz FSB? A better GPU with 64MB VRAM? Higher resolution than 1024x768? Smaller size? SuperDrive option? 5400RPM HDs as standard? 512MB as standard?
My 12" PowerBook may be nice, but it could be up for sale next week (especially if I can actually gain money by selling it to buy a new iBook).
those were 90nm, Yonah will be 65nm
Yonah will only be viable at 65nm - that's what the production chips will be. Yonah's design is pretty much complete, the release date depends on the 65nm process schedule more than the design work schedule.
Whether 65nm is sampling now is not public AFAIK, but it probably won't be too long now....
It would be mostly a waste of time and money for Apple to build MacIntel prototypes using the big hot 90nm chips. It would make more sense for Apple to work with the 65nm chips as soon as they are sampling.
Apple can test software issues today with OSX on dual Intel systems with Pentium D or Xeon systems - they don't need to build a throwaway laptop proto to test the software.
True, but the chips Intel showed months ago were prototypes done on a 90nm process. They were big and hot.SiliconAddict said:
Yonah will only be viable at 65nm - that's what the production chips will be. Yonah's design is pretty much complete, the release date depends on the 65nm process schedule more than the design work schedule.
Whether 65nm is sampling now is not public AFAIK, but it probably won't be too long now....
It would be mostly a waste of time and money for Apple to build MacIntel prototypes using the big hot 90nm chips. It would make more sense for Apple to work with the 65nm chips as soon as they are sampling.
Apple can test software issues today with OSX on dual Intel systems with Pentium D or Xeon systems - they don't need to build a throwaway laptop proto to test the software.
Next week if you want a PPC Mini or iBook, you'll have to buy it at overstock.com, but you won't want to. The new Mini is Intel (2+ GHz) on a board designed and sourced for Apple by Intel. Apple is doing low-end Intel first, the ultimate switcher's dream: dual-boots Windows. OSX has run on Intel since the beginning, the Altivec thing has been worked out, and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to build an Intel motherboard (Woz could do it in his garage in a weekend) especially with Intel chipset integration. We didn't see this coming the same way we were floored by the Mini (after all the speculation on the design of a headless Mac). Jobs didn't want to get sandbagged like he did when Moto got stuck at 500MHz in the 90s, and swore to never let it happen again, so was ready when IBM stalled and the 3GHz promise was hosed, and Intel for more than a year has been very proactive in providing a solution that went far beyond just supplying one chip. Apple is so secretive, if they weren't going to have Intel Macs for a year, Steve wouldn't have said word one. Apple has never dumped inventory into a liquidator like overstock, but this is an extraordinary situation, obviously - who would want the old architecture?