No PowerBook Updates Before 2005

[sw1tcher]

I want a 17 inch powerbook.

Do I buy now, wait a few weeks or possibly into next year???

I don't want to wait until next year - I want my powerbook now!!!

The way I see it is that Apple have to release a upgrade within a month surely - even if its only a small one.

If you don't want to wait (or can't wait) for updates, then just get it now and enjoy it because there won't be any updates until at least MWSF.

I, on the other hand, can and will wait. There's no need for me to replace a 667Ghz 15" G4 with what's available now. Hoping for something better.

 

[sw1tcher]

I'd really like a 12" PB (having just switched from Windows, and
using a Dual 2.0 G5 at work and a G5 iMac at home), but I feel like
the price on the 12" PB is way too high now, relative to the 12" iBook.

I hate the idea of buying it now and have a revision come out in
two or three months, since it's not absolutely crucial that I have it
(lots of other new Mac toys to play with)....

If I knew, with certainty,
that no PB revision was coming for 6-8 months, I'd buy now (especially
if the 12" PB price dropped by $300). If I knew with certainty that a
new PB was coming in 2-3 months, I'd happily wait. But not knowing
puts me in limbo.

Apple would be crazy to wait another 6-8 months before updating the PB's. There will certainly be updates to the PB line in 2-3 months since the last updates were made in April.

If there aren't any updates in 2-3 months, then that much mean that there's something BIG is on the way.

All this waiting is driving me crazy!

 

[sw1tcher]

There is no need for Apple to rush out and upgrade the PowerBook line.

With the recent updates to the iBook line, there *is* a need for Apple to update the PB line. But I agree with you. They should not rush it. Do it when it's ready. I can wait.

How many people here really plan to buy a new computer in the next 3 months? As an Apple Shareholder I would love to see an accurate show of hands.

If Apple updates the PB line enough in the next 3 months, then I'd be buying at least one.

And to answer Diatribe's question:

"who would want a Rev. A G5 PB?"

I would buy one. And so would many other people who've been waiting.

 

[gskiser]

Count me in your accurate show of hands...

How many people here really plan to buy a new computer in the next 3 months? As an Apple Shareholder I would love to see an accurate show of hands.

Well, since you asked. I raise my hand to be counted for that. I have a 466 G3 Clamshell. I don't see any point in buying a current powerbook this late in the current G4's life cycle. Besides, the current FSB is ridiculous. I made the decision 6 months ago that I would by a powerbook as soon as Apple releases a significant update and form factor change (ie...G5 PB, or dual core).

I'm also not concerned about shying away from a Rev A. Yes, they may have trouble, but then again Apple's had trouble and recalls with some of the later ibook & powerbook revisions, so you are never assured a smooth ride. Yes it may be more of a risk, but at the same time your machine will be current and up to date that much longer. I'll buy Applecare with my Rev A and won't give it a second thought.

So, in answer to your question: Yes, I really plan to put down $3,000 the very day Apple releases a new form factor PB with either a G5 or dual core. If they do it in Jan, I'll buy in Jan. If they wait until April, then I won't buy until April. Its up to Apple.

 

[mypantsaretight]

As someone who switched from desktop macs to laptops with the release of the Pismo, I find this discussion interesting, albeit for different reasons than many of you.

I am curious exactly what it is that you cannot do with your current laptop (or the current laptop models for sale) that you reasonably expect to be able to do with a G5 laptop?

My freaking old 500 MHz Pismo G3 with 256MB of RAM can perform virtually every task that my 15" PB G4 does. It runs the same software, the same OS, etc., and it does so at speeds that are certainly not unusable. In fact, if I compared both computers on the same task, I doubt I would save more than a of handful seconds here and there on certain processor intensive tasks.

So what is it exactly that you whiners are unable to do with the current PB that you expect to be able to do with a slightly faster PB G5???

Stupid non-anwsers include (Please refrain from these and other similarly inane answers should you choose to respond.):
1) Blah blah windows/linux laptop can do x, y, z and I can't. Fine, go buy one. End of story. Count me and Steve Jobs among the people who aren't losing any sleep over it.

2) I want an Alienware/Etc. portable desktop. Duct tape, a monitor, an Xserve and a car battery are your only chances for this. Apple will never release such a model.

3) It's been a long wait. Go for a walk and GET OVER IT.

I suspect most of you just have a major problem with Jonesing rather than a real reason for throwing this unending tantrum.

peace


ps.
Did any of you who are clamoring for an Apple dock-station or a laptop that is designed for use with one ever own that GIANT PIECE OF CRUD that was the duo? That product died for good reasons.

 

[Army_Punk]

G5 Powerbook - saving $$ now

I am currently in Iraq, making some serious bank, and when I get back I plan to buy a maxxed out 17' G5, if they have them out by them. Max RAM, max everything. I still have my original TiBook 500Mhz, bought at MWSF 01, starting to get weak. Can't even play X-Plane or Railroad Tycoon on it anymore. Some of the other guys think I am crazy spending over $4000 on a new PB, when I could get a maxxed out PC for $1500-$2000...but they dont understand. I'll never go over to "that" side. Come on Apple, you have one year before I get back, get to it! Heat sinks be damned!

 

[~Shard~]

I'm angry. Christmas is on the horizon and this appears to be Apple telling us that once we've bought all the Powerbooks, they're going to give them an update.

No, actually what this means is that Apple isn't ready to update the PowerBooks yet. Do you want another minor speed bump? No, then you would just complain about that instead. So, Apple is no doubt working on a major revision, possibly involving the dual core G4 or the G5 (not as likely). PowerBooks updates will come when they're ready to come. This has nothing to do with "buying all the PowerBooks", do you realize how narrow-focused that statement is?

This doesn't really encourage me to buy a Powerbook. In fact, it really puts me off, BIG time.

The guess what - don't buy a PowerBook - no one is forcing you to. Maybe buy an iBook instead, they're excellent machines and have just been updated.

The only way that Apple can counter this and get my money is if they update SOMETHING on the Powerbooks and I don't mean by dropping the prices. For example, a faster Superdrive, Keynote thrown in, even a token speed hike, a larger harddisk or, best of the lot, BETTER GRAPHICS CARD.

Then I guess you'll be waiting for a while - Apple can't please everyone. I am very curious to hear though what exactly you require a more powerful PowerBook for (the existing ones are very powerful), what volume of burning you do which warrants an 8x SuperDrive over a 4x SuperDrive, how many Keynote presentations you give on a weekly basis for your job, and what pro applications you use which require a better graphics card. Just curious.

 

[Furrybeagle]

The PowerBook is fine enough as it is. A Radeon 9700 graphics card, which most people have been complaining is to weak, is not. The processor is fine. Everything is fine.

Apple will release the next model when they can. That's it. If you want to speculate about it, fine. If you want to give your opinions, fine. If you want to talk about what to buy, fine. Just don't kill yourselves over this issue. It's not that big a deal once you look at it in the scope of things. In ten years, I doubt you'll be using your current computer or even your next computer.



...Unless it's a life or death situation, then I'd be very concerned about it.

 

[~Shard~]

I am currently in Iraq, making some serious bank, and when I get back I plan to buy a maxxed out 17' G5, if they have them out by them.

I sincerely hope you return safely. A friend of my good friend went to Iraq and "made some serious bank", as you put it - $2000 USD/day - and was killed after being there for 5 weeks. It doesn't matter how much money you make if you don't live to spend it. So take care and feel lucky and fortunate when you return, whether there's a G5 PowerBook waiting for you or not.

 

[~Shard~]

The PowerBook is fine enough as it is. A Radeon 9700 graphics card, which most people have been complaining is to weak, is not. The processor is fine. Everything is fine.

Thank you - as I said, I wold really like to know how many pro users there are out there who cannot get by with the current 17" PowerBook. I realize there are some, of course, who require more power for very legitimate reasons, but if some people require a lot more power from the PowerBooks, maybe they need to be looking at a desktop instead of a laptop. Either that, or they're not pro users at all and are just little kids who want a better graphics card, more power, etc. etc. for those all-important games.

 

[drsuse]

Thank you - as I said, I wold really like to know how many pro users there are out there who cannot get by with the current 17" PowerBook. I realize there are some, of course, who require more power for very legitimate reasons, but if some people require a lot more power from the PowerBooks, maybe they need to be looking at a desktop instead of a laptop. Either that, or they're not pro users at all and are just little kids who want a better graphics card, more power, etc. etc. for those all-important games.

i could easily get by with a 17" powerbook; i produced a 20 minute movie for a film festival with fcp3 on a borrowed 600mhz imac with os 9... the only difference is how long it takes to render things.

it's just that i'll need a laptop next fall, and so i'll order whatever's out by june, if something revolutionary comes out before then, then it'll be a little more future proof. i'm hoping to get 6+ years out of it.

 

[~Shard~]

i could easily get by with a 17" powerbook; i produced a 20 minute movie for a film festival with fcp3 on a borrowed 600mhz imac with os 9... the only difference is how long it takes to render things.

it's just that i'll need a laptop next fall, and so i'll order whatever's out by june, if something revolutionary comes out before then, then it'll be a little more future proof. i'm hoping to get 6+ years out of it.

There will definitely be some sort of update out by June, so you have nothing to worry about. As for lasting you 6+ years, that's an awful long time! But hey, depending what you need it for, it could still definitely do the job - I'm thinking in 6 years though, whether your laptop still works or not, you'll be wanting something new and REALLY cool, like a G6 PowerBook...

 

[drsuse]

There will definitely be some sort of update out by June, so you have nothing to worry about. As for lasting you 6+ years, that's an awful long time! But hey, depending what you need it for, it could still definitely do the job - I'm thinking in 6 years though, whether your laptop still works or not, you'll be wanting something new and REALLY cool, like a G6 PowerBook...

yeah, probably.

i'll likely still be in university at that point (starting next fall), so money may be tight, but hey...that's what loans are for...

my dad bought his wall street when they first came out ('98), and it still works great or everything he needs it to do, except run os x... he could do it if he upgraded the ram, just hasn't really seen the point.

 

[~Shard~]

yeah, probably.

i'll likely still be in university at that point (starting next fall), so money may be tight, but hey...that's what loans are for...

my dad bought his wall street when they first came out ('98), and it still works great or everything he needs it to do, except run os x... he could do it if he upgraded the ram, just hasn't really seen the point.

Still though, that's definitely a testament to the longevity of Apple machines. How many people can say they still have their PC from 1998, haven't upgraded it significantly, can still use it effectively, and could load XP onto it by just upgrading the RAM? Good luck...

 

[AidenShaw]

Me.

How many people can say they still have their PC from 1998, haven't upgraded it significantly, can still use it effectively, and could load XP onto it by just upgrading the RAM? Good luck...

Actually, I do have a '98 vintage Pentium laptop running XP.

Everthing that I did in '99 with NT4 runs just fine today on XP. No complaints about speed (although I did get it with the max of 512 MiB of RAM even back then).

It's been moved to "spare computer" status, however. Not because it can't run XP quickly - but because my newer 5 Mpixel digital camera is giving it images that it just can't handle fast enough for my "patience level".

My newer 1.7 GHz Pentium M with 2 GiB of RAM blows through these images without breaking out in a sweat.
_______________

So, it's not the computer, or the applications - it's the DATA that's killing the older system.

 

[~Shard~]

Actually, I do have a '98 vintage Pentium laptop running XP.

Everthing that I did in '99 with NT4 runs just fine today on XP. No complaints about speed (although I did get it with the max of 512 MiB of RAM even back then).

It's been moved to "spare computer" status, however. Not because it can't run XP quickly - but because my newer 5 Mpixel digital camera is giving it images that it just can't handle fast enough for my "patience level".

My newer 1.7 GHz Pentium M with 2 GiB of RAM blows through these images without breaking out in a sweat.
_______________

So, it's not the computer, or the applications - it's the DATA that's killing the older system.

I still like the fact though that OS X isn't bloatware like Windows. What a novel concept that you can upgrade your Mac to Panther for example and it actually makes your system run faster. And also that the minimum system requirements don't double like they seem to do for every version of Windows. I'm exaggerating here, but still, it seems like Windows' requirements have gone from 400 MB to 1 GB to 2 GB to 4 GB of HD space, and 32 MB to 64 MB to 256 MB of RAM, as well as great leaps in processor speeds. Mac OS just doesn't seem to have those types of requirements...

 

[maya]

I still like the fact though that OS X isn't bloatware like Windows. What a novel concept that you can upgrade your Mac to Panther for example and it actually makes your system run faster. And also that the minimum system requirements don't double like they seem to do for every version of Windows. I'm exaggerating here, but still, it seems like Windows' requirements have gone from 400 MB to 1 GB to 2 GB to 4 GB of HD space, and 32 MB to 64 MB to 256 MB of RAM, as well as great leaps in processor speeds. Mac OS just doesn't seem to have those types of requirements...

It's the premium one pays as a Mac users thus your argument is answered.

Last time I checked Xp will run on a 2000 year PC. As does Panther. Is the PC computer OS feel slow yes compared to the Mac side. However that is cause for argument.

-------------------------------------------------​

Reason for a PBG5 is because the Top Mobile end notebook like is running very close to the bottom end mobile line.

I want to render 3D images may it be still or animation on the road or anyplace where brilliance strikes me. I want to encode my home movies or if I a shooting an "Independent Movie". My choice, I am willing to pay for Power and Mobility. And no I do not want a PMG5 try caring that around.

It also seems that Apple and IBM are falling behind on the mobile end, when compared to the rest of the industry.

Do I need a G5 to surf the web or email, nope however I want to process data in the background and having a 64-bit chip and OS will allow me to have more active memory to complete the work faster and experiment with my 3D scenes or movies. And no I don't want to buy an iBook and a PMG5 to take from work to home and visa versa. Maybe instead of buy a JET for Steve and Co. How about lowering the PB price it looks outdated or give more for the same price. Bring on the PBG5 already, Apple is one of the major companies in the computer industry to spend millions on R&D, are these people sleeping.

And why would anyone invest in the G4 so late in the game, when the G5 has hit the iMac line. Tiger is going to use 64-bit to full capacity, so why invest in a 32-bit chip now. Even if Tiger will work on it, its still not going to compare to a G5 64-bit with a 64-bit OS to compliment it. More memory runs more, tasks, applications, faster.

Unless you really need a notebook go ahead buy the 32-bit G4 PB's.

Apple is a computer company there are not your friend they profit from you, so why take it easy on them for short falls.

Last time I checked did they buy you a JET for being an Apple customer for XYZ years.

And for those, I am a mac users for over 10+ years. I just cannot figure as to why the PB have fallen short and only delivered so little in such a long time. Moto's fault maybe. Now it seems that IBM is in the Moto shoes.

 

[johnnyjibbs]

I still like the fact though that OS X isn't bloatware like Windows. What a novel concept that you can upgrade your Mac to Panther for example and it actually makes your system run faster. And also that the minimum system requirements don't double like they seem to do for every version of Windows. I'm exaggerating here, but still, it seems like Windows' requirements have gone from 400 MB to 1 GB to 2 GB to 4 GB of HD space, and 32 MB to 64 MB to 256 MB of RAM, as well as great leaps in processor speeds. Mac OS just doesn't seem to have those types of requirements...

I know and agree with what you're saying but, to be fair, OS X requires hefty specs (much greater than OS 9), such as 128MB RAM (256 at least to be productive), a couple of gigs of HD space (compared with about 200MB for OS 9), etc. What is good for us Mac users is that OS X 10.0 has required this, 10.1 required this, so did 10.2 and 10.3, and 10.4 will too

 

[JFreak]

you should be comparing osx requirements to longhorn requirements, as they are both 64bit-era operating systems. comparison of current windows will have to be made to classic os9, at least if one wants fair results

comparing panther to xp is like comparing this year F1 ferrari to 90's williams...

 

[AidenShaw]

The World Isn't Ready for True 64-bit Laptops

Tiger is going to use 64-bit to full capacity, so why invest in a 32-bit chip now. Even if Tiger will work on it, its still not going to compare to a G5 64-bit with a 64-bit OS to compliment it. More memory runs more, tasks, applications, faster.

You've hit the nail on the head here - "more memory", specifically "more than 4 GiB of RAM per process".

That's what "use 64-bit to full capacity" means - everything else can be done with a 32-bit CPU (including more than 4 GiB of RAM per system - the G4 supports up to 64 GiB of RAM).

So, this leads to the conclusion that you can't "fully" use a 64-bit CPU in a laptop unless the laptop has more than 4 GiB of RAM - at 4 GiB or less you might as well have a 32-bit chip (and a dual-core 32-bit CPU would just thrash the 64-bit chip).

Next conclusion is that you won't see an 8 GiB capacity laptop. Current SO-DIMMs top out at 1 GiB - and use up to 24 watts of power per SO-DIMM.

So, think about a laptop with 8 memory slots using nearly 200 watts of power just for the RAM.... Wouldn't that be an innovation - NOT?

A Freescale dual-core G4 would be a great machine for the near term - for a couple years until 4 GiB SO-DIMMs or some alternative is available. Unless IBM is coming out with a dual-core 970 that uses 10-20 watts, the Freescale chip will stomp a G5 laptop.

A "64-bit laptop" would just be willy-waving, you wouldn't be able to put enough memory in it to use 64-bits - or it would have a couple of XServe fans to keep it cool. (Claiming "64-bit" for the iMacs and PM 1.8 systems is willy-waving too, you can't put enough memory in them to "fully" use 64-bits.)

 

[AidenShaw]

you should be comparing osx requirements to longhorn requirements, as they are both 64bit-era operating systems.

But XP 64-bit is available for purchase or download today, OS X 64-bit is not. The "64-bit era" hasn't begun for OS X yet....

It's also interesting that 32-bit NT 3.1 ran on a 64-bit processor when it was introduced in 1993 - it was 10 years later that 32-bit OS X ran on a 64-bit processor. Oops, does that mean the Windows 95 is a "64-bit era" OS....

Just what is the "64-bit era", anyway? Sounds like marketing-speak, not something with any technical foundation.

comparison of current windows will have to be made to classic os9, at least if one wants fair results

Classic OS9 compares to Win9x.

NT/2K/XP/2K3 are fundamentally similar to OS X at the core (virtual memory, memory protection, multi-tasking, multi-threading, SMP, TCP/IP, micro-kernel-like ...). Most of the differences are at the presentation layers.

 

[JFreak]

64bit xp is just as much 64bit than osx panther running on G5 hardware. it's not complete. tiger will have all code base checked for 64bit compatibility and then re-compiled. that's the same thing microsoft does with longhorn.

 

[~Shard~]

I know and agree with what you're saying but, to be fair, OS X requires hefty specs (much greater than OS 9), such as 128MB RAM (256 at least to be productive), a couple of gigs of HD space (compared with about 200MB for OS 9), etc. What is good for us Mac users is that OS X 10.0 has required this, 10.1 required this, so did 10.2 and 10.3, and 10.4 will too

Fair enough, point taken. OS 9 to OS X is more of a noticeable "jump", however as you stated, I was thinking more along the lines of OS 10.0->10.4. I agree.

 

[AidenShaw]

I believe that's absolutely false

64bit xp is just as much 64bit than osx panther running on G5 hardware. it's not complete. tiger will have all code base checked for 64bit compatibility and then re-compiled. that's the same thing microsoft does with longhorn.

http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;294418

Comparison of 32-Bit and 64-Bit Memory Architecture
...

[b]Architectural component   64-bit Windows    32-bit Windows[/b]
Virtual memory                16 terabytes         4 GB 
Paging file size              512 terabytes        16 terabytes 
Hyperspace                    8 GB                 4 MB 
Paged pool                    128 GB               470 MB 
Non-paged pool                128 GB               256 MB 
System cache                  1 terabyte           1 GB 
System PTEs                   128 GB               660 MB

...
The 2-GB User-Mode Virtual Memory Limitation

64-bit programs use a 16-terabyte tuning model (8 terabytes User and 8 terabytes Kernel). 32-bit programs still use the 4-GB tuning model (2 GB User and 2 GB Kernel).
...
APPLIES TO
• Microsoft Windows XP 64-Bit Edition
• Microsoft Windows Server 2003 64-bit Enterprise Edition

XP 64-bit is true 64-bit - all pointers are 64-bits, and applications can use more than 4 GiB of RAM.

OS X (Panther) is 32-bit - pointers are 32-bits and an application has a 4 GiB (or less) limit

XP on IA64/AMD64/EM64T is not like OS X 10.3 - Windows 64-bit is true 64-bit, and it's been shipping for 3 years. There's no wait for Longhorn.
___________________

Please, if I'm wrong, provide links to show that an OS X 10.3 program can use 64-bit pointers, and allocate more than 4 GiB of RAM in a flat 64-bit virtual address space.

___________________

See also: Counting the Bits of a Panther

"...a true 64-bit application on a true 64-bit OS such as Solaris, AIX, HP-UX, Irix, zSeries, Tru64 and the 64-bit versions of Linux, Windows and the BSDs..."

"...Mac OS X is not a 64-bit OS, by my definition emphasizing the ability of applications to use 64-bits of memory. Therefore, Apple is behind almost all commerical UNIXs, 64-bit versions of Linux for many platforms including Intel's Itanium and AMD's Opteron/Athlon64, and 64-bit versions of Windows for Itanium and Opteron..."

 

[rtjstevens]

Lecturer needs a Mac laptop

Advice please. I have a G4 desktop at home but have to use a PC in my lab at work. I use PowerPoint a lot, sometimes having written the notes first with Keynote (Keynote problem: It's not easy to write scientific formulae with all the sub and super scripts -but that's another story!)

Question: Will the new iBook with its rather limited graphics capability run fairly detailed PowerPoint displays ( some of the pages may have embedded gif animations and flash)?

Thanks

Richard Stevens (UK)