PowerBook 970s at WWDC?

[alia]

Originally posted by moosecat
It is very interesting that this thread/item remains up, while another thread, concerning some chip to be included in some computer and announced at some event has been removed at the request of Apple legal.

What does that say about the reliability of this one?

I'm in agreement with you Moosecat. The veracity of this particularly rumor is certainly questionable after the recent pulling of other rumor posts! It's a real shame too, because I'm hoping to get a new 15" powerbook this summer after the next revision, but now I'm worried it will be completely outdated in a few months!

Alia

 

[fpnc]

Cease and desist because rumors are false

Apple's apparent attempt to control the PPC970 rumors does not necessarily mean that the rumors are true. In fact, I think it is more likely that these legal moves are a tacit admission that the rumor are __false__ (i.e. there will be no PPC970 introduction at WWDC). Apple won't officially comment on unannounced products, so we shouldn't expect them to state openly that the rumors are false.

However, if the rumors are true and they persist the worse that could happen is that G4 desktop sales slow slightly for the next two weeks and then when the PPC970 announcement is made there is a flurry of buying. Net result would be the delay in some sales and a few days of extra inventory on the G4 PowerMacs.

However, if the rumors are false and there is no PPC970 introduction then the net effect could be several orders of magnitude worse for Apple. This could easily happen because after WWDC the rumors will likely continue (Well, it was delayed for a month, wait until July. What, delayed again? Wait until next month, etc.). Thus my explanation for the cease and desist requests from Apple legal is that the rumors are indeed false and Apple is trying (rightly so) to protect future PowerMac G4 sales.

Of course, we're all just playing mind games here. What I purpose is that we all exercise some caution in handling these rumors. After all, in two weeks time we can meet back here and determine who were the real men and women in these discussions and who were the boys and girls. ;-)

 

[pyrotoaster]

Originally posted by fpnc
Of course, we're all just playing mind games here. What I purpose is that we all exercise some caution in handling these rumors. After all, in two weeks time we can meet back here and determine who were the real men and women in these discussions and who were the boys and girls. ;-)

Ooohhh...
Actually, you sort of have a point. Apple isn't going to exclusively plug accurate rumors. At the same time, Apple isn't going to exclusively plug bogus rumors, either.

In order to keep pre-expo sales up (they've still got computers to sell, you know), Apple just creates confusion. For all we know, the folks at Apple Legal are reading each rumor and then just flipping a coin to decide whether to take it down or not.

We shouldn't look at a story being pulled as either confirmation or denial. The AppleInsider G5 rumor was pulled from Mac Rumors but not AppleInsider itself. Sounds like confusion to me...

 

[3.1416]

Re: Cease and desist because rumors are false

Originally posted by fpnc
I think it is more likely that these legal moves are a tacit admission that the rumor are __false__ (i.e. there will be no PPC970 introduction at WWDC).

Interesting theory. Has Apple ever demanded that sites remove information that turned out to be false? I don't recall any instances, but perhaps they have. It would seem odd though, since the usual rationale that Apple uses to shut down stories is that they have improperly obtained trade secrets or copyrighted material (such as images). This obviously wouldn't apply to *false* rumors...

 

[fpnc]

Re: Re: Cease and desist because rumors are false

Originally posted by 3.1416
Interesting theory. Has Apple ever demanded that sites remove information that turned out to be false? I don't recall any instances, but perhaps they have. It would seem odd though, since the usual rationale that Apple uses to shut down stories is that they have improperly obtained trade secrets or copyrighted material (such as images). This obviously wouldn't apply to *false* rumors...

But I'm pretty certain that there are laws against publishing false information about companies that could affect their business plans, sales, and stock price. In fact I would expect that the punishment for something like that could be greater than just stating the truth, where the only violation might be that someone may have broken a confidentiality agreement. Which is "worse," a truth or a falsehood when they are __both__ just rumors? I'm sure that a lawyer could argue either way and the laws covering this may not be completely logical (for a layperson), but I would think that sustaining a false rumor that could harm a company could also result in legal actions.

 

[3.1416]

Re: Cease and desist because rumors are false

Originally posted by fpnc
Apple won't officially comment on unannounced products, so we shouldn't expect them to state openly that the rumors are false.

They have however specifically said "no new hardware" before other major events when there was speculation that there would be. They could easily dispel the 970 rumors with a similar announcement.

Thus my explanation for the cease and desist requests from Apple legal is that the rumors are indeed false and Apple is trying (rightly so) to protect future PowerMac G4 sales.

It's possible, but I don't think it's likely. G4 sales are already in the tank, and they're going to stay there until better hardware arrives regardless of what Apple legal does or doesn't do. The 970 rumors are already widespread and Apple's actions have drawn even more attention to them.

What I purpose is that we all exercise some caution in handling these rumors. After all, in two weeks time we can meet back here and determine who were the real men and women in these discussions and who were the boys and girls. ;-)

Sound advice. (There are women here?)

I would think that sustaining a false rumor that could harm a company could also result in legal actions

That could be. But as I said, I don't recall Apple ever going after incorrect rumors. Ah well, 13 more days of uninformed speculation...

 

[GulGnu]

I doubt there is legal basis for going after "false speculation" (After all, it's impossible to prove that these are malicious lies being spread...) about the company. After all, such speculation is a legitimate part of the investors and customers trying to forsee the company's future. Now, squelching the spreading of trade secrets on the other hand...

Regards / GulGnu

-Stabil som fan!

 

[The Shadow]

What's your problem Hickman?

Hickman ridiculously refuting Arn's observation that we don't know for sure if PowerBooks can currently be produced to run cool enough with a PPC970 CPU:

Originally posted by Brian Hickman
Here are the facts straight from the documents of their respective developers:

PPC 970:
19W @ 1.2 GHz, 1.1v

http://www-3.ibm.com/chips/techlib/...2AE087256C5200611780/$file/PPC970_MPF2002.pdf

(page 14)

MPC7455:
15W (typical) @ 1GHz
22W (Maximum) @ 1GHz

http://e-www.motorola.com/brdata/PDFDB/docs/MPC7455EC.pdf

(page 15)

I hope this settles the discussion once and for all about the power utilization of the processors.

Hickman

Respectfully, the discussion is only settled when others have all had an opportunity to express their "opinions".

Mr HicKman should check his alleged "facts". The slide presentation he refers to could hardly be referred to as a technical "white paper" and does not employ any academic discipline. And nowhere is the word "maximum" used in reference to voltage. So does it refer to an average? Does it refer to a minimum? Or, is it really a marketing document disguised as a technical document? (Aside: Slide presentation? Facts? Common!)

Which brings us to the next point. Namely science is about TESTING the claims of others. When you've done that, over several experiments and get the same results, then you have evidence! One source, possibly released by the IBM marketing department is hardly sufficient to stand up to academic scrutiny.

Third, how are any of these "facts" relevant anyway, as wouldn't it seem UNlikely that Apple would go with a 1.2GHz chip? Therefore aren't these "factual" voltage figures ikely to be understated? According to these statistics, were they to be accepted, a 1.4 GHz 970 could run hotter than a G4 1 GHz, which is really pushing the heat envelope.

Finally, Mr Hickman goes on to contradict himself in a later post by citing additional heat considerations:

Originally posted by Brian Hickman
At typical CPU utilization the PPC 970 @ 1.2 GHz uses 26.67% more power than the G4. [HUH? SEE ABOVE COMMENTS - SHADOW] But, the CPU isn't the only source of heat within the laptop case. Does anyone have documented proof of the total heat generated by the PowerBook line?

Oops!

Arn was right. We won't know anything for sure till the WWDC.

I can't believe anyone would attempt to seriously argue against that proposition.

S

 

[NicoMan]

Re: What's your problem Hickman?

Originally posted by The Shadow
Arn was right. We won't know anything for sure till the WWDC.

I can't believe anyone would attempt to seriously argue against that proposition.

S

Do you mean that we will know because official white papers about the 970 will be distributed, allowing us to compare? If you think that we will know because some of us will have in their hands early samples of the Powerbook G5, I think you (and me too, in a way) will be disappointed.

I believe we won't see PBG5 at WWDC.

NicoMan

 

[NicoMan]

PPC 970 heat dissipation

I think all these discussions about the 970's heat dissipation are somewhat irrelevant, because I don't think the criteria is heat, it's more to do with having enough experience with the chip and chipset to produce a Mobo optimized enough for a laptop. After all, we are talking about Hypertransport, fast DDR, etc... which are quite revolutionary, as far as Apple are concerned. If the 970 is as fast as we would like to hope, you have enough margin of manoeuvre (in terms of computing power) to lower the voltage to get to an acceptable power consumption. The problem, with the G4, is that Apple need to push it as far as they can to achieve decent level of performance (as well as breaking that 1GHz-in-a-laptop barrier), hence the heat dissipation problem.

NicoMan

 

[Frobozz]

Re: If this rumor is true

Originally posted by copperpipe
If this rumor is true I wil sh*t diamonds. But I'm not counting on that happening.

LOL. Somebody get a pooper scooper STAT.

 

[adamfilip]

to many dreams..

so after WWDC we will have

New Ibooks running on G4's

New Imacs running Low end 970's
New PowerBooks running 970s

New Towers running mid to high end dual 970
same with the Xserves

oh yeah i cant wait for the next Ipod with dual 970's and a Serial ata 10,000 Rpm 100gig 1.8" hard drive and build in GPS navigation..

 

[dongmin]

Re: Re: Re: references concerning heat

Originally posted by Brian Hickman
Can you post a reference for your PPC 970 @ 1GHz info?

As far as the MPC7457 goes:
Full power mode:
15.8W (typical) @ 1 GHz
22.0W (max) @ 1 GHz
18.7W (typical) @ 1.3 GHz
26.0W (max) @ 1.3 GHz

OK we're approaching the ad nauseum point with this line of discussion but I'll briefly address some questions you brought up.

I'm no computer scientist but I'm pretty sure the heat dissipation increases linearly with the frequency given the same voltage. So I got the 1.0 ghz 970 figure by simple multiplication.

The 7457 comes in two voltages, at least according to this and this Moto document. The low-power version does 7.5W @ 1.0 ghz.

Originally posted by illumin8
All of those features you mentioned as arguments that the PowerBook will not receive a 970 processor yet are features that will only be in a desktop computer in the first place.

I was actually referring to the rumor recently put out by MacWhispers which claims that because of the cheaper cost of the 970, Apple is more likely to go 970 across its entire lineup than have a mix of 970s and G4s. I was not talking specifically about putting the 970 in a PowerBook.

 

[DrGonzo]

i think...

I think releasing a 15" AluBook w/ a G4 along with a ppc970 Powermac launch would actually hurt AluBook sales a lot. If i see this badassed processor in a desktop that will eventually (probably?) be in the notebooks there's no way i'd "waste" my money on a new 15" unless it had some serious horsepower out of the G4. I'd much rather pay ~$2000 for an "older" 1ghz superdrived 15" than a newer slightly updated 15.4" and then upgrade later (but i don't want to, i want ppc970 PBs this month, as i'm sure we all do)

Even if Apple doesn't release a ppc970 notebook they should at least let us know when it will be upgraded to a new processor so those of us that don't want to "waste" our money can hold onto our precious lupins and save it for that day when the powerbook gets the almighty upgrade.

 

[freundt]

Re: i think...

Originally posted by DrGonzo
Even if Apple doesn't release a ppc970 notebook they should at least let us know when it will be upgraded to a new processor so those of us that don't want to "waste" our money can hold onto our precious lupins and save it for that day when the powerbook gets the almighty upgrade.

Why would thery do that? If they say nothing, then chances are, you will break down and buy an exisitng one. Hence money in the pocket. And if you don't break down, then they'll get your money anyways when the new 970's come out.

Also, if they did that, then very few pb sales would happen until the date the 970's were previously announced to be released.

Basically, if the 970's aren't released at WWDC, then I'm screwed, because I've been waiting since jan to buy a 15". And I don't want to get a G4 knowing the 970's will will be 4 months or so later. So I'll wait even longer. GRR...

 

[Powerbookless]

?

Ok, after steamrolling through five pages of threads about the PPC 970 showing up in Powerbooks this month... I have a need to make some small comments.

#1 - We can argue the power differences between the mobile G4 and the PPC 970, but the simple fact is whatever Apple puts in to the laptop will still give us our 5hr approx battery life. And considering any Intel or AMD based laptop out there, any Powerbook will stomp on it for Power Management features.

#2 I read a bit back that some people thought that FC would be a great idea in the laptop. What have you been smoking??? There is no cost effective measure that would allow any company to do that. The gains of FC are only realized in systems where there is a chance that the installed hardware can saturate the north and south bridge chips. Laptops don't have that type of throughput. So unless you need major performance, keep your unholy laptop idea away from this thread and gargle your bong water elsewhere.

#3 If there is a PPC 970 in any Powerbook, there is a good chance that Apple would keep in reserved for the high-end 15.4" Powerbook Config. The standard config could very well stick to an upgraded G4 @ 1GHz.


So anyways there is my piece... Roast me if you will.

Cheers
Powerbookless

 

[rmac]

Re: Re: i think...

Originally posted by freundt

Basically, if the 970's aren't released at WWDC, then I'm screwed, because I've been waiting since jan to buy a 15". And I don't want to get a G4 knowing the 970's will will be 4 months or so later. So I'll wait even longer. GRR...

Same here. Except that I have a time constraint of sorts. Will be able to get educational discounts for a month or so after WWDC. If I can't get a new powerbook within that window have to buy it normal price. And then after the summer I'll be in Germany, where the prices are even higher.

 

[The Shadow]

Re: Re: What's your problem Hickman?

Originally posted by NicoMan
Do you mean that we will know because official white papers about the 970 will be distributed, allowing us to compare? If you think that we will know because some of us will have in their hands early samples of the Powerbook G5, I think you (and me too, in a way) will be disappointed.

I believe we won't see PBG5 at WWDC.

NicoMan

No I didn't mean anything of the sort Nico. The statement you ascribe to me is exactly the hysteria I was arguing against.

I just meant we won't know what's going to happen at the WWDC until the WWDC. Nothing more, nothing less.

S

P.S. In case anyone hasn't noticed, this site is called MacRumors, not MacFacts! Some people in this thread are having a hard time distinguishing between the two concepts!

 

[MacKid]

Re: Re: wait for rev. b?

Originally posted by cb911
you don't have to worry about the current TiBooks, or any Macs with G4's not being optimised. sure 10.3 will have certain optimizations for the 970's, but i'm sure that it will also have some speed increases on G4's. after all, even with the 970 a big part of Apple's line will still be G4 & maybe even G3.


and on the subject of anodizing... i recall reading that if you anodize something like a PB case, then contact with the skin will mean that eventually the coating will corrode and wear away. this can't be the case with the current AlBooks, right? i might be getting a bit technical here, but is it only anodizing with dye that makes it corrode with skin contact... or is there a different process that the AlBooks go through?

Whoa.

I really, REALLY, don't think Apple would even get close to being cheap enough to get material that wears away with (place expletive here) SKIN CONTACT!

 

[MacKid]

Um. . .

Originally posted by wwworry
ok this is stupid but


1.8 GHz 970 x 1.5 = 2.7 speed
1.4 Ghz dual G4 = 2.8 speed

so why no dual processor configurations?

what's stupid is my processor math (full of holes) but still it would be nice to have dual 970s.

You over-looked the keyword: performance. I hate to bring this age-old-mac-defending-topic, but MHz doesn't equal speed or performance. It is simply a spec of a computer that contributes to the speed. So, unfortunately, in the computer world, 2x2?4

 

[leicaman]

Originally posted by zac4mac I've seen hard anodized Al chip and rip teeth off a carbide saw blade - it's really tough, on the surface. [/B]

I looked up anodizing a while back and found that the product that's used in anodizing alumnium most of the time is also the same chemical composition as corundum. A certain color red of corundum is ruby. The rest are sapphire or fancy sapphire.

On the Mohs scale of hardness, corundum is a 9. Synthetic mossanite, also known as carborundum when it's not gem quality, is a diamond simulant (as opposed to synthetic diamond which is the same as natural diamond in chemical composition) is 9.5 and diamonds of course are 10. So anodized aluminum has an extremely hard surface if it's the "hard" kind.

The Moh's scale is not linear. 10 is about 10,000 times harder than 9. The curve is pretty vertical starting around 9. (Talc is 1).

Diamonds being pure carbon for the most part have an ideal molecular structure for hardness. It's the hardest known natural substance.

(I help produce the leading text books on gemstones.)

 

[NicoMan]

Re: Re: Re: What's your problem Hickman?

Originally posted by The Shadow
No I didn't mean anything of the sort Nico. The statement you ascribe to me is exactly the hysteria I was arguing against.

I just meant we won't know what's going to happen at the WWDC until the WWDC. Nothing more, nothing less.

S

P.S. In case anyone hasn't noticed, this site is called MacRumors, not MacFacts! Some people in this thread are having a hard time distinguishing between the two concepts!

Sorry, I wasn't very clear in my post. I was really asking for your opinion (and others', obviously).

NicoMan

 

[rjstanford]

Re: ?

Originally posted by Powerbookless
We can argue the power differences between the mobile G4 and the PPC 970, but the simple fact is whatever Apple puts in to the laptop will still give us our 5hr approx battery life. And considering any Intel or AMD based laptop out there, any Powerbook will stomp on it for Power Management features.

One question. Have you checked out the new Centrino models? Its easy to bash a company based on prior experience with them, but there are now several shipping intel models running ~1.6 (+/-) ghz P4M chips with 5-7 hours of battery life. Attack them for being clunky, or bash the OS, or whatever, but the 2 hour battery life of the original P4 (non-M) systems isn't really an issue any more.

Combine that with the prices (below), and the intel notebooks are fast becoming a very appealing threat. Take the Dell D800 for example...

• 1.6ghz intel with Centrino
• 15.4" high-resolution widescreen
• NVIDIA GeForce4 4200
• DVD/CDRW combo
• 802.11 a/b/g combo
• 3 year warranty
• Bluetooth
• 1gb RAM
• 40gb HD

The price? $2,774 according to the quote I got yesterday. Don't get me wrong, I would pay a premium to get the design quality and OS compatibility of an Apple notebook. But saying that the intels don't have what it takes from a checklist viewpoint is just pure FUD these days.

-Richard

ps: In case you hadn't checked recently, that's about $50 less than the current 15" tiBook firesale price (1gb, combo drive, APP). Except that that doesn't have 802.11a/g, bluetooth, or a high resolution screen. And has about half the processing power (which isn't (or shouldn't be) a big deal to some people, but is to others (including, incidentally, myself)).

 

[JBracy]

Re: Re: ?

Originally posted by rjstanford
One question. Have you checked out the new Centrino models? Its easy to bash a company based on prior experience with them, but there are now several shipping intel models running ~1.6 (+/-) ghz P4M chips with 5-7 hours of battery life. Attack them for being clunky, or bash the OS, or whatever, but the 2 hour battery life of the original P4 (non-M) systems isn't really an issue any more.

Combine that with the prices (below), and the intel notebooks are fast becoming a very appealing threat. Take the Dell D800 for example...

• 1.6ghz intel with Centrino
• 15.4" high-resolution widescreen
• NVIDIA GeForce4 4200
• DVD/CDRW combo
• 802.11 a/b/g combo
• 3 year warranty
• Bluetooth
• 1gb RAM
• 40gb HD

The price? $2,774 according to the quote I got yesterday. Don't get me wrong, I would pay a premium to get the design quality and OS compatibility of an Apple notebook. But saying that the intels don't have what it takes from a checklist viewpoint is just pure FUD these days.

-Richard

ps: In case you hadn't checked recently, that's about $50 less than the current 15" tiBook firesale price (1gb, combo drive, APP). Except that that doesn't have 802.11a/g, bluetooth, or a high resolution screen. And has about half the processing power (which isn't (or shouldn't be) a big deal to some people, but is to others (including, incidentally, myself)).

Actually that's $125 MORE than the 15" PB with SuperDrive, BT, AP, 60GB HD, 512MB RAM. Check the AppleStore. $2,649

 

[pyrotoaster]

Originally posted by adamfilip
to many dreams..

so after WWDC we will have

New Ibooks running on G4's

New Imacs running Low end 970's
New PowerBooks running 970s

New Towers running mid to high end dual 970
same with the Xserves

oh yeah i cant wait for the next Ipod with dual 970's and a Serial ata 10,000 Rpm 100gig 1.8" hard drive and build in GPS navigation..

I don't who told you we'd see iMacs, but we definitely won't see PowerPC 970 iMacs until next year at the earliest.

As for iBooks, I'm going to provide two corrections:
1. We probably won't see them at WWDC. Although they are due for an update and would make an awesome One more thing...
2. The iBook will probably go to the G3 GOBI (or Mojave, depending on who you talk to) processor, not the G4. You can read more about the GOBI here.

Lol about the iPod, though.