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

PowerBook and iBook Confirmation?

AndrewMT said:
I agree with most of the things you said, but there are some things you just can't defend when it comes to the flat panel iMac. It's just too damn expensive! For that same $1799 price tag, I could put together a pc powerhouse WITH a quality flat panel lcd screen (that will not become uselss when my computer becomes outdated).

In addition, I am so f$%^%$@ tired of Apple ignoring graphics in its consumer line (or in all of its computers, for that matter). The geforce4 MX with 32mb and the geforce FX 5200 with 64mb of memory are the crapiest graphics cards in both the mac and pc market right now. If I wanted to pick one of those up for my peecee right now, it would cost me less than $30. For a computer that costs over $1000, you should get a quality graphics card with at least 64mb of memory.

In terms of laptop graphics performance, Apple is also currently getting its @$$ kicked (although the 17" was one of the first notebooks with a Radeon 9600).
Click to expand...

Yes iMac sales are way down right now because people don't buy the iMac. They either buy the eMac, or they buy the PowerMac G5. Especially since the eMac and iMac have very similar specs. Most people aren't going to pay $700 more just to get a 17" Widescreen display as opposed to a 17" Flat CRT in the eMac. The only problem for Apple is that there isn't much breathing room for the iMac with the G4 processor. They're getting it pretty much as high as it will go and not be just as fast or faster than the PowerBook. Apple would probably have a much easier time selling iMac if they would make it headless, put a G5 in it, and drop the price of the tower $200 or $300.

As far as graphics, well most PCs that compete with Apple's eMac and iMac use shared memory for video. So an NVIDIA GeForce FX 5200 Ultra is a hell of a lot better than an HP, or a Dell with 16 or 32 MB of shared video ram. People aren't going to buy an eMac to play games. If your really serious about gaming on the Mac then you would buy a PowerMac G5. Its more than just the video card that makes high frame rates. Apple can put the biggest and baddest video card in an eMac or an iMac, but if the processor can't keep up then its useless. Also, Apple can only put in their machines what NVIDIA and ATI makes for them. Its not Apple's fault that ATI/NVIDIA charges so much for their graphics card. Thats one of the disadvantages of Apple being so small and that there is only one type of Mac. They both can basically charge what they want because there is no competition. Apple has to choose either this video card from NVIDIA or this one from ATI.

And I wouldn't buy a laptop to play games on... Any laptop, Mac or PC will have worse results than playing on a desktop. I hear that these new PowerBooks are supposed to have newer graphics in them. Actually I think the iBooks are too.
 
integrated graphics just as fast as Radeon 9800 Pro

mklos said:
So an NVIDIA GeForce FX 5200 Ultra is a hell of a lot better than an HP, or a Dell with 16 or 32 MB of shared video ram. People aren't going to buy an eMac to play games.
Click to expand...

And people would buy an i865G (integrated graphics) system to run games? Of course not....

Tom's hardware ran some benchmark tests ("Sysmark 2002") comparing the Intel i865G integrated graphics chipset to a number of systems, and the performance of the i865G was virtually the same as a Radeon 9800 Pro.

Tom's doesn't allow deep linking, so see the graphs here:

http://www.tomshardware.com/graphic/20030903/integrated_graphics-19.html


Of course, on the games tests in the same article the R9800p was 9 times faster or more. ;)


The point is that a Celeron with integrated graphics is a great, cost-effective combination for most of what most people do on a computer - even things like Photoshop or Elements. It may suck at Unreal Tourament - but most people don't care.

For most people, having a 64 MiB graphics capability is more important than having fast DirectX or OpenGL acceleration. (The i865G can statically allocate up to 32 MiB of RAM, and dynamically allocate and release up to 32 MiB more as needed.)
 
AidenShaw said:
And people would buy an i865G (integrated graphics) system to run games? Of course not....

The point is that a Celeron with integrated graphics is a great, cost-effective combination for most of what most people do on a computer - even things like Photoshop or Elements. It may suck at Unreal Tourament - but most people don't care.
Click to expand...

Exactly my point! So why are people whining about Apple not putting high end graphic cards in their CONSUMER end models! Most people don't care about what kind of graphics card is in it. A Celeron is an ok processor, but its not a great processor either, but it suits most low end consumers needs just fine.
 
jjmaximum said:
The Apple Store is up and running...guess nothing but a press release today?
Click to expand...

What the hell are you talking about dude? Why would Apple release something on a Sunday?
 
mklos said:
What the hell are you talking about dude? Why would Apple release something on a Sunday?
Click to expand...

Um, possibly because NAB, which everyone has been talking about for the past few weeks, starts in 3 hours? :cool:

To quote yourself:

What the hell are you talking about dude?

;) :p
 
mklos said:
Exactly my point! So why are people whining about Apple not putting high end graphic cards in their CONSUMER end models! Most people don't care about what kind of graphics card is in it. A Celeron is an ok processor, but its not a great processor either, but it suits most low end consumers needs just fine.
Click to expand...

Because the pro/consumer distinction is bogus. Some of the most power-hungry customers are "consumers" (Games, etc.), while many "professionals" need virtually no number / graphics crunching power at all. The optimal thing, thus, would be graphics chip customizability on the iMac - then all people could have what they want.
 
Uh....

eSnow said:
For all we know, the 750vx is not dual-processor-capable. At least the rest of the line is not, and I see no reason why IBM should change this for one specific descendant of the venerable G3.

What's more, if you look at the spec-values of the 750gx, it is just 2/3 of a G4 at the same clock frequency. Unless IBM has redone the vx completely, it will be a low-performance chip by todays standard.

Furthermore, the 750s have an inferior bus than even the G4 (it is synchronous).

Stop jazzing up this chip, it is currently vapor-ware and most likely would not be used by Apple because it offers too little performance for even the iBooks.
Click to expand...

Um, you're just wrong on several counts. I suggest you read...

http://www.appleinsider.com/news.php?id=318

Happy trolling.
 
Although this is a little premature, I was just curious, will Apple continue to sell powerbook G4s after the G5s come out like it does with the PowerMac? I haven't been a Mac user for that long, so I don't know what happened when the G4s came out.
 
AidenShaw said:
And people would buy an i865G (integrated graphics) system to run games? Of course not....

The point is that a Celeron with integrated graphics is a great, cost-effective combination for most of what most people do on a computer - even things like Photoshop or Elements. It may suck at Unreal Tourament - but most people don't care.
Click to expand...

The article says:

"normal "office-type" work in Windows programs "

It does not mention photoshop and I'd love to compare a manipulating a 10 MB image on a machine with an integrated graphics chipset to one with even an FX 5200.
 
If they release this at NAB will they put out a press release today or will we just have to hear about it from people who went to the show?
 
skinEman23 said:
If they release this at NAB will they put out a press release today or will we just have to hear about it from people who went to the show?
Click to expand...

If they release something today I'm sure they will publish a press release afterwards unless they want to wait until tomorrow morning to get more attention.
 
Well, even if there's no PR, the news will get to us by tonight.. It might just take till 8:30 EST tomorrow morning to make it "official"..

Zaty said:
If they release something today I'm sure they will publish a press release afterwards unless they want to wait until tomorrow morning to get more attention.
Click to expand...
 
I could be wrong, but I think they're not really "selling" the G4 towers any more.. They're "for sale" but there's no promotion, and I don't believe that they're manufacturing them anymore, just clearing out inventory in little drips..

Finding the G4 tower is easiest on the .edu pages as there are schools that are still on OS9.

I suppose if Apple ran out of MDD tomorrow, they might manufacture more on the chance that they'd sell, but I think it would be a money-losing prop.

I could be wrong about all of this, so if anyone has links, let us know.

jackc said:
Although this is a little premature, I was just curious, will Apple continue to sell powerbook G4s after the G5s come out like it does with the PowerMac? I haven't been a Mac user for that long, so I don't know what happened when the G4s came out.
Click to expand...
 
Hiroshige said:
The article says:

"normal "office-type" work in Windows programs "

It does not mention photoshop and I'd love to compare a manipulating a 10 MB image on a machine with an integrated graphics chipset to one with even an FX 5200.
Click to expand...

There'd be no discernable difference. Photoshop is a 2D application, and only uses the display to render bitmapped images, not render them in 3D. My ancient Matrox G200 would be just as fast as a Radeon 9800 Pro working on that image in an identical 3.4GHz P4. This is of course on a Windows XP based system which doesn't use rendering capability of the GPU for normal bitmap painting like Photoshop uses. That 10MB, 30MB, 200MB image is being manipulated in main memory, not GPU memory...
 
eSnow said:
For all we know, the 750vx is not dual-processor-capable. At least the rest of the line is not, and I see no reason why IBM should change this for one specific descendant of the venerable G3.

What's more, if you look at the spec-values of the 750gx, it is just 2/3 of a G4 at the same clock frequency. Unless IBM has redone the vx completely, it will be a low-performance chip by todays standard.

Furthermore, the 750s have an inferior bus than even the G4 (it is synchronous).

Stop jazzing up this chip, it is currently vapor-ware and most likely would not be used by Apple because it offers too little performance for even the iBooks.
Click to expand...
Why are we even TALKING about the 750vx (and please, don't give me that tired old line about how this is a rumor site blah blah blah). There was ONE rumor from AI saying the chip was finalized. That's it. There are no specs to talk about since the chip does not exist. It's funny (and slightly annoying) to hear people talk about how this and this chip is going to 'save' Apple. Sure it will. In your fantasies, 'cuz that's the only place this thing remotely exists.

sorry for the rant
 
mklos said:
Thats one of the disadvantages of Apple being so small and that there is only one type of Mac. They both can basically charge what they want because there is no competition. Apple has to choose either this video card from NVIDIA or this one from ATI.
Click to expand...

how difficult would it be for apple to start manufacturing it's own clones of the ati or nvidia cards? there's like tens of card manufacturers for PC. apple' designing their own computers, why not design their own graphic cards? maybe it's just not cost efficient enough or something. after all, I know very little about this kind of stuff.

would someone like to enlighten me?
 
mklos said:
Exactly my point! So why are people whining about Apple not putting high end graphic cards in their CONSUMER end models! Most people don't care about what kind of graphics card is in it. A Celeron is an ok processor, but its not a great processor either, but it suits most low end consumers needs just fine.
Click to expand...
This is so true.

Very few computer users need much power.

Most typically use computers for e-mail, web browsing, word processing and the occasional spreadsheet and presentation.

Very few get into graphic (pictures or video) other than to dable a bit. Yes, I realize many folks upload their digital pics. Most just do that to display their pics and backup to CD. Very few use Photoshop and or video editing programs.

I just build a cheap PC system with an Athlon 2500+. It is more than enough power for the apps mentioned above and then some.

On the Mac side, a G3 is still powerful enough for most apps. A G4 does fine.

I am not saying that faster more powerful processors aren't good. I am just saying that the majority of folks don't need that kind of power.

Recently, as in last week, Japanese TV carried a news article that they expect consumer computers in the sub $200 mark next year. My guess is that these will be pizza box style computers with everything on the motherboard except for the HD and CD-RW. Don't expect floppy drives or PCI expansion. My guess is that the CPU and RAM will be mounted on the MB to save costs and increase reliability. They may have an additional slot for RAM memory expansion. But at sub $200, you can throw your old one away and get a new one in a year or two and be ahead of the game for the most part.

Recently it seems more folks are getting frustrated with purchasing expensive systems only to have them be outdated so soon. Computers are becoming a commodity item for the mainstream consumer. The exception seems to be the build your own market which, over here anyway, is expanding like crazy.

Sushi
 
what happened to tuesday releases

okay, call me sceptical, but doesn't Apple normally release new products on Tuesday? Okay sometimes later,but mostly Tuesday, why is that anyway, tradition?

Anyway, if true, (and all indications are that it is) it is great. No matter what you think of the g4, it is more than capable of portabel computing for the average Joe... Then again, we're Mac people, and not that average.... ehh okay, i'll quit now.
:)
 
Snowy_River said:
Interesting. I have used GB a bit on my 867MHz 12"PB, and it doesn't seem all that sluggish. In fact, in general, it seems quite snappy. Don't know what was wrong with that iMac, but, as the saying goes, YMMV...
Click to expand...

Hell, I use it on my underspecced 500 mhz G4 Powerbook. I haven't played around with it with lots of channels and loops, but with one to three channels it's just fine, responsivity-wise.

~J
 
Snowy_River said:
My fiancee has a 2GHz P4 Dell running WinXP HE. When comparing the UI speed of this machine with my 12"G4 running Panther, I've found that they are easily on a par with each other, and frequently my Mac is often faster. I'd like to know what OS your 1GHz Pentium3 is running, as that does make a difference.
Click to expand...

Its XP Professional, My computer was custom built by me, before the tulatin p3/celerons came out, and right when the first crop of pentium 4s came out (the 1.6 and 1.4s) this was a time when the pentium 3s were still outperforming the 4s because they had a smaller pipeline (i think that was the reason) but yeah, that doesn't surprise me about the dell, especially if its running on an intel extreme graphics video card (built in). My PC runs a 64mb ATI Radeon 9000.

I almost think its perception though, you don't have animated windows in the XP GUI, just menus, so there a fractions of seconds lost in OSX because it feels the need it needs to scale the "Macintosh HD" Icon to open a new window, it would be nice for pro users that don't want that sort of frill to just turn it off, it wastes time.


PS As an avid user of Quickeys, I am all about saving fractions of seconds.
 
Build your own system...

Last week I saw an add for a $499 Dell computer with 15 inch flatscreen.

The computer was $599 with a $100 rebate.

I just built a minimal system for $350.

I decided to compare the two systems.

Well, to get the Dell up to my minimal system, I had to add 128MB of RAM, a floppy drive, a CD-RW (Dell only came with a CD-ROM). The updated price? $739 ($639 after rebate).

I could easily get mine down another $30 or so. At $320, my system was $319 cheaper -- or half price. Plenty of scratch left over for a 17 inch TFT vice 15 inch TFT!

So while I thought that the Dell was the better deal, it appears that it is not, even with the $100 discount and free 15 inch TFT screen.

Plus a year from now, since mine is built with standard components, I can easily upgrade parts of it such as the CPU, or the MB and CPU, etc.very cheaply. Where as the Dell, maybe I cannot since they are starting to use proprietary parts.

BTW, my pricing is simple store prices including tax. In some cases cheaper than the states, in others more expensive -- depends on the item.

Sushi
 
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