Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

New iBooks

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 512k, or 256k L2?

Originally posted by Backtothemac


Hey, this thing involved him and Alpha. There is no reason for you come stick your nose in it :mad:
Click to expand...

hey im all for peacemaking but alpha has been on a rampage since he hit 1000s. these sort of attacks are a daily occurence around here and even though this makes you "mad" it makes me even more mad that all of you big posters out there stand up for alpha even when he is being a jerk. alpha used to have really good posts but lately he has only been interested in attacking people, and strangely most of the time he doesnt seem to know what he is talking about. so imo i see nothing wrong with these guys pointing out that someone has been a disruuption to the community, i only wish the rest of you wouldnt be so blinded by alpha's post count when it comes to matters like this.


and back to the topic at hand. ive been holding back a pc friend of mine from buying an ibook because of all the rumors about a new ibook. its great to see i can finally let him go and get one. problem is he wants a dvd rom, and for some reason apple has dropped this option (in this update and the previous one). i had this same problme when buying my imac. if you want the ability to play dvds you have to get the fancy combo or superdrive. seems like there should be an option for a standard dvdrom drive; they cost the same amount as cdroms so whats the deal. but all minor bitching aside. this is a wonderful update. and it is very interesting to see what they have done with the 14" models. the 14" is not so much a high end model now as it is just a different model. the low end 12 is teh same as the low end 14 in every other respect. some interesting choices there on apple's part
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 512k, or 256k L2?

Originally posted by dukestreet


Yes, B2TM is trying to earn his Moderator Badge, lots of action today! Seesh, too much. Why can't we all just get along?

MWNY is obviously going to be the showcase for the new desktop, which is about time. But this new iBook has a real appeal, if I already didn't have a TiPB, I'd seriously consider it. Maybe I'll get it for my wife, now there's a thought. Though I don't think she'd be joining the forums as MrsDukestreet, it would still be a coup to get her on a mac.
Click to expand...

Ha, that was a great post. Really I love that. Yea, the wife joined, and has fallen off of the face of the earth. One of our cats is real sick. On the topic though, she loves the new iBook, and really wants one.

AL. I agree with most of what you said, and I do not defend him just because of his post count, nor mine, all I was trying to say was that he could have pointed it out nicely, and then handled it himself. I don't think that 4 people have to get involved in it. Just trying to help keep things in line a bit that is all. I would much rather talk about the iBooks, than Alpha and the other guys fighting.....

So, that said, I hope it is the Sahara.
 
Sounds a good little upgrade!! Shame the screen resolution was not upped a little! However, if I did not have a Dual 1ghz I would probably buy one!
 
in regard to thingy (sorry, its a long thread) talking about Quartz Extreme (ugh, extreme what an awful word) making things faster on an iBook or any other mac - its all true...

do this:

open the terminal and type top (thats as far as my unix knowledge goes) and see all the numbers counting... look at the top right of the window where it shows the percentage of the processor that is idle. when your doing nothing it should be quite high. now grab a large window and move it around the screen really fast for a while and watch the idle processor % drop down to nothing.

now if you try that in WWDC Jaguar on a G4 400 PCI Graphics with a RAGE 128 16MB VRAM card (not the fanciest mac out there) the processor remains idle... meaning that a PCI graphics card with half the 'optimum' VRAM still takes sufficient load from the CPU to make a HUGE difference.

i tell ye.. if i had the choice of an 800MHz G4 with 10.1 and my PCI Graphics G4 400 with 10.2, i think i would stick with what i have...
 
Re: iBook resolution to external VGA

Originally posted by kettle
I was wondering what happens when an iBook is connected to an external 19'' VGA capable of 1600x1200?
Would I be limited to a 1024x768 mirror, or could I spread out a bit?
thanks.:)
Click to expand...

Kettle asked this question a couple of pages back, and no one responded, I am interested in the answer, so I thought I would "second the question" well? :p
 
Re: Re: iBook resolution to external VGA

Originally posted by DavidOS


Kettle asked this question a couple of pages back, and no one responded, I am interested in the answer, so I thought I would "second the question" well? :p
Click to expand...

I know that my iBook 600 will only mirror at 1024X768 and in thousands of colors. It could be different with the Radeon though. Will let you know.
 
Originally posted by fbcfabric
in regard to thingy (sorry, its a long thread) talking about Quartz Extreme (ugh, extreme what an awful word) making things faster on an iBook or any other mac - its all true...

do this:

open the terminal and type top (thats as far as my unix knowledge goes) and see all the numbers counting... look at the top right of the window where it shows the percentage of the processor that is idle. when your doing nothing it should be quite high. now grab a large window and move it around the screen really fast for a while and watch the idle processor % drop down to nothing.

now if you try that in WWDC Jaguar on a G4 400 PCI Graphics with a RAGE 128 16MB VRAM card (not the fanciest mac out there) the processor remains idle... meaning that a PCI graphics card with half the 'optimum' VRAM still takes sufficient load from the CPU to make a HUGE difference.

i tell ye.. if i had the choice of an 800MHz G4 with 10.1 and my PCI Graphics G4 400 with 10.2, i think i would stick with what i have...
Click to expand...
I've done this a number of times in trying to see the comparative efficiency of PCI vs AGPx4: I have a DP G4 800 with a GeForce 3 AGP board and a PCI Rage 128 Orion (16MB). For massive window drags under OS X, the GeForce 3 is glass smoothe. The Rage 128 in almost glass smoothe. I am totally satisfied with it speed. But when looking at the CPU meter while dragging a window around on one screen, then the other -- there is no real difference in CPU usage between AGP and PCI. Both use the same amount for that operation in looking at the CPU meter.

QE would make the GeForce 3 screen smooth (smoother then it is now it would seem) but at almost no CPU cost. The Rage 128 screen will keep on as it has always done, quite smoothe but at CPU cost.


blakespot
 
Originally posted by blakespot

I've done this a number of times in trying to see the comparative efficiency of PCI vs AGPx4: I have a DP G4 800 with a GeForce 3 AGP board and a PCI Rage 128 Orion (16MB). For massive window drags under OS X, the GeForce 3 is glass smoothe. The Rage 128 in almost glass smoothe. I am totally satisfied with it speed. But when looking at the CPU meter while dragging a window around on one screen, then the other -- there is no real difference in CPU usage between AGP and PCI. Both use the same amount for that operation in looking at the CPU meter.

QE would make the GeForce 3 screen smooth (smoother then it is now it would seem) but at almost no CPU cost. The Rage 128 screen will keep on as it has always done, quite smoothe but at CPU cost.


blakespot
Click to expand...

Actually, I am seeing a difference. My iMac has 10.1 and my iBook is running 10.2. If I launch CPU monitor and scroll through the dock, the iMac goes to almost 100% CPU useage. The iBook though hovers around 25 - 50% The same is true for Windows. It is running on the iBook, and is making a huge difference.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 512k, or 256k L2?

Originally posted by AmbitiousLemon


hey im all for peacemaking but alpha has been on a rampage since he hit 1000s. these sort of attacks are a daily occurence around here and even though this makes you "mad" it makes me even more mad that all of you big posters out there stand up for alpha even when he is being a jerk. alpha used to have really good posts but lately he has only been interested in attacking people, and strangely most of the time he doesnt seem to know what he is talking about. so imo i see nothing wrong with these guys pointing out that someone has been a disruuption to the community, i only wish the rest of you wouldnt be so blinded by alpha's post count when it comes to matters like this.
Click to expand...


Thanks AmbitiousLemon - that's exactly what I've been feeling for some time. Large numbers of posts don't give you carte blanche to be rude.

Maybe some of those other large count posters might actually sit up and take some notice.

Oh, and this isn't the first time I've been **** on my someone with a large post. It's not constructive, and if it's as uniformed as the numerous examples Alphatech has given us, it only serves to lower respect for those people who post on Macrumors as regularly as he does (i.e. the other demigods etc).
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 512k, or 256k L2?

Originally posted by Dunepilot



Thanks AmbitiousLemon - that's exactly what I've been feeling for some time. Large numbers of posts don't give you carte blanche to be rude.

Maybe some of those other large count posters might actually sit up and take some notice.

Oh, and this isn't the first time I've been **** on my someone with a large post. It's not constructive, and if it's as uniformed as the numerous examples Alphatech has given us, it only serves to lower respect for those people who post on Macrumors as regularly as he does (i.e. the other demigods etc).
Click to expand...

Hey, I agree that post count doesn't give someone a right to be rude. I just hate to see a topic get off of the thread. This is an article thread. Lets keep it on the article. If someone is an A$$ to you, click the little report this post to mod button, or sort it out over PM. That was the only point that I was trying to make. So Dune, what do you think about the new iBook? ;)
 
Things have gone full circle with cache sizes now

First we had the G3 with it's 512K 2:1 ratio cache then it was increased to 1Mb on all the G3 chips and the G4s up until the introduction of the PPC7450.

As soon as there was a model with a 256K 1:1 ratio chip, the benchmarks started flying in to prove that even a 500Mhz G3 could thoeortically beat a 733Mhz G4 with no 1Mb L3 in some tasks, the 500Mhz G4 certainly did, This was ALL down to cache size and the lack of a larger L3 with the extra pipeline stages being only slightly to blame.

That 1Mb made quite a dent in the performance too, it needed to be 2Mb on the newer G4s to gain any real speed gains or even clock for clock performance between the older G4s with a 1Mb L2 cache.

We know that the size and speed of the L2 cache is very important, so I think increasing the L2 to 512K put's us right back at the beginning again but at a huge advantage over 4 or 5 years ago.

Imagine how fast the next G4s will be if they doubled everything and we get 128K L1, 512K L2, 4Mb L3 and DDR RAM. They wouldn't even need to be faster than about 1.4Ghz for us to see quite significant speed gains over the current models and Apple could certainly TRY and do a dual G4 vs Single P4 show down with the mac coming out on top.
 
g3 ibooks

This strikes me as cool, if the new g3 600-700mhz are this new chip that IBM is talking about in that PDF that was posted then in you could overclock your 700mhz@100mhz bus to 1ghz@200mhz with very little ease and little heat gain plus low battery loss too, i think it can be done and someone out there might be jutsy to try it :) hapy OCing
 
re insults/fights

Yes, there's no reason for anyone to be rude or mean to another poster... and post status/demi-god status does not make any difference.

Stay on topic... any more posts about it will be deleted from this thead.

arn
 
oh, the new ibook.....

Yeah, thanks for asking backtothemac;)

it seems pretty good. I'm just sorry a mate of mine bought an Acer laptop last week, despite me spending hours trying to persuade him to go with a 'book of some description.

What it came down to in the end was that he didn't want to have to replace all of his apps for Windows. I've come up against that argument a lot recently from friends - a lot of them have a LOT of pirate software they just couldn't get cracked Mac versions of - or couldn't afford to buy legally. I think this is a big problem for Apple, but not one that they can do anything to get around, unless they offer some seriously cheap edu deals on software.

The big apps I'm referring to are things like Sibelius (i've got numerous friends who'd buy a mac who are stopped by this one - it's over £300 even if you get it at student discount).

And with audio software too - lots of friends have used cracked versions of Logic audio etc, whereas I paid the full price for the Mac version.

...all of which isn't strictly related to the iBook, but must be losing apple a lot of iBook sales, unfortunately.

:( wish me luck for my exams starting tomorrow morning:(
 
Framerate Increase?

Will QE also provide a framrate increase? I have a Ti G4 800 and just did a framerate check running itunes visualizations in full screen (open itunes, check visualizations - full screen, hit the "F" key). I am only getting an average of 23 fps. Shouldn't it be more with the new 32MB card? Will it be more with QE? Post your framerates for comparison.
 
Re: Framerate Increase?

Originally posted by pwfletcher
Will QE also provide a framrate increase? I have a Ti G4 800 and just did a framerate check running itunes visualizations in full screen (open itunes, check visualizations - full screen, hit the "F" key). I am only getting an average of 23 fps. Shouldn't it be more with the new 32MB card? Will it be more with QE? Post your framerates for comparison.
Click to expand...

I was getting about 15 with the iBook before X.2, now getting 18 solid! Can't wait to see what the iMac does. It is around 16-17 now. Should be higher. Use G-force. It is better than the iTunes viz.
 
Quartz Extreme Specs Again?

I've seen several posts indicating that this machine was "Quartz Extreme" ready. Have the video card specs suddenly shrunk from 32MB to 16MB? Has Quartz been re-optimized for the G3? Does the direct-to-video card feature negate the need for the G4 optimization?
 
I've got a TiPB with the same card as the one they're putting in the iBook and I get 20-23 at full screen. But the screen is a little bigger, so you'll probably get better results.

One thing to note, even at faster speeds, the human eye really can't discern the faster frame rates that well, so it becomes more of a technical issue, not one of playback quality.
 
Re: Quartz Extreme Specs Again?

Originally posted by dernhelm
I've seen several posts indicating that this machine was "Quartz Extreme" ready. Have the video card specs suddenly shrunk from 32MB to 16MB? Has Quartz been re-optimized for the G3? Does the direct-to-video card feature negate the need for the G4 optimization?
Click to expand...

It was a bit vague...

The specs indicate 32mb recommended for optimal performace...

otherwise... here's the best info I've seen from an ATI employee a this xlr8yourmac forum thread


Yes, unfortunately it only supports AGP, so PCI Radeons do not get Quartz Extreme acceleration. The problem does boil down to 'bandwidth' since it's compositing window context buffers straight out of AGP space. The issue with PCI is not about the rendering performance of the chip, but of getting the data to the 3D engine. With many large windows layered on top of each other, the memory footprint can be quite huge. This is why there isn't support for PCI. It was tried, and the performance sucked.

Just to clarify what Mike was speculating on, yes this acceleration does work on PBG4's using M6, including those with only 16MB of VRAM.

Regards,

Arshad
ATI Technologies


arn
 
Re: Quartz Extreme Specs Again?

Originally posted by dernhelm
I've seen several posts indicating that this machine was "Quartz Extreme" ready. Have the video card specs suddenly shrunk from 32MB to 16MB? Has Quartz been re-optimized for the G3? Does the direct-to-video card feature negate the need for the G4 optimization?
Click to expand...
Again, 32MB is the optimum memory quantity--not the requirement. AGP is a requirement. A supported chipset is a requirement. Not 32MB.



blakespot
 
Re: g3 ibooks

Originally posted by markseaton
This strikes me as cool, if the new g3 600-700mhz are this new chip that IBM is talking about in that PDF that was posted then in you could overclock your 700mhz@100mhz bus to 1ghz@200mhz with very little ease and little heat gain plus low battery loss too, i think it can be done and someone out there might be jutsy to try it :) hapy OCing
Click to expand...

... assuming your ram can handle the 200MHz speed.
 
It's a baby ... ibook

I just got home with my long awaited iBook. It's so cute out if its mother's ... box. It seems very snappy, though I have yet to install third party apps. iTunes opens up instantaneously after the mandatory preference questions, as does Explorer, etc.

However, it costs more money to get the iBook from the Apple Store than online if you want additional memory (I wanted 384mb) because it comes with a 128mb chip that must be replaced by a 256mb chip and installed (by the user only, I was curiously told). Hence, the 128mb chip is rendered useless, yet you are charged for it. My roommate has an original Ti 400 which accepts the memory, however, so I will get off lucky.

I installed the 128 and will just wait and see if he notices any performance difference. The next time he complains about needing more memory (he was running X.1 on the 128 the TiBook came with...brave soul, indeed), I'll present him with a bill for memory and installation. Ah, profiting off unrequested services...is there anything more American? :D
 
Ladies and Gentlemen, the real differemces...

between the old iBook and the new:

(note: I have a migraine, so I'm wearimg sunglasses and have the brightness and contrast at minimum, so please excuse any spelling errors, as I can't see the iMac screen or keyboard real well)

1, the a/v jack is now only a headphone jack.
2. the rest of the a/v out functions are now in what was the VHA out jack.
3. Whst was the VGA out is now video out, and it includes S-Video out, composite out, NSTC amd PAL, similar to the old a/v out port.
4. Apple VGA adapter is now included.
5. All models have 100MHz system bus
6. Reset button has been moved.
7. AGP is now 2x. It was 1x before.
8. All models feature a 16MB Mobility Radeon, capable of running QE though not at full speed.
9. All models (including those in the UK, probably an earlier typo) have 512k L2 cache on die, at processor speed.
10, As for the apparent discrepancy between Combo and CFRW/DVD, the title of the one the CDRW/DVD one IS Combo.
11. A faster combo drive.

That should clear up any comfusion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back