Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
laprej said:
But how exactly can you determine the fact that it's a 7447 in there right now? Is it online somewhere, or maybe on the chip? The closest thing I could find was this page at Apple: http://www.apple.com/powerbook/specs.html, but all of those part numbers start with M96... Anyway, thanks.

It's 7447A in there. Of course they could be putting 7448 in there, run it at 166Mhz bus and somehow cripple half the cache. But why on earth they would want to do that?

And the M96.... refers to the model-number of the COMPUTER, not the CPU!
 
ksz said:
If you could split a heavy computational job into 4 parts and spread them across the 4 cores, you would be able to claim a 10 GHz computational rate. Instead of getting 2.5 GHz worth of computations per second, you would be getting 10.

That' the theory...

In reality multi-processor machines don't scale linear due to the protocol overhead for sharing resources and computing time between the 4 processors.

A machine like that would probably compare more to a 8GHz single processor machine...

groovebuster
 
Evangelion said:
It's 7447A in there. Of course they could be putting 7448 in there, run it at 166Mhz bus and somehow cripple half the cache. But why on earth they would want to do that?

And the M96.... refers to the model-number of the COMPUTER, not the CPU!

I think you're misunderstanding my question - how did the very first guy go about figuring out what chip was in his PB? Is the processor itself labeled, or is it documented by Apple somewhere?
 
laprej said:
I think you're misunderstanding my question - how did the very first guy go about figuring out what chip was in his PB? Is the processor itself labeled, or is it documented by Apple somewhere?

For example, click here
 
iAlan said:
Will decide once the new 'Beasts' are released


Mr Maui said:
I'm not betting that the new PBs will be 'Beasts', but I'm all for Apple proving me wrong. :D

Ok, I will now call them 'Puppies' until further notice, that way if they are Puppies no one is disappointed, but if they are 'Beasts' we can all shout 'Yippee'

And Puppies are soooo cute...
 
D3LM3L said:
Why do you guys want a Dual-Core PowerMac SO BADLY?? You think that Dual 2.7GHz isn't fast enough? I have a 2.7 G5 and it is SO FREAKING FAST that I am starting to think that Mac OS X isn't fully optimized to handle it's 100% speed!
Good question, thanks for asking!

First, we don't just want a dual-core PM G5, we want a dual dual core (quad core) PM G5!

The dual dual core represents the pinnacle of technological advancement in the Macintosh world and to a large degree many of us are intellectually and emotionally drawn to breakthrough technologies. We encourage progress and we spend the money to support it.

Okay, some of us have legitimate business or professional needs for more processing power and others of us will find a way to tax the processors with something. Don't worry, we can always find that something.

I could never ask for any more speed than this. It does EVERYTHING, and only gets better as you add more and more RAM (I'll have 4.5GB by next week :p).
Then I suggest you keep your dual 2.7 for the remainder of your life because, as you say, you "could never ask for any more speed..." The rest of us will march on to the latest and greatest. ;)
 
ajwitte said:
ThinkSecret chimes in.
I wonder if they are just repeating AppleInsider? AI seem to be the ones with the inside connections lately.

Yeah, I found that with the Oct 12th event, TS kept changing their minds, and seemed to suggest so many things that they couldn't be wrong, AI, didn't deviate too much from the Video iPod and got it right.
 
The disappointment!

I'm desperate to dump my stinking PC for a 12" PowerBook but I'm worried by the reports they are being abandoned. Do apple really not care about them any more? Are we going to get some end of line bargains maybe?
 
ksz said:
Then I suggest you keep your dual 2.7 for the remainder of your life because, as you say, you "could never ask for any more speed..." The rest of us will march on to the latest and greatest. ;)

You are touching a very interesting subject in the computer world. Indeed there are people out there who don't see any benefit for themselves to have a new and faster computer with a more modern OS and Applications. Many Software got to a point where it is just close to perfect as it is and can't be really improved anymore. The group of these people gets bigger with every day. Take for example a word processor. Word 5.1 for Mac was doing almost everything very well for the average user back then, not much room for improvements. If you compare the actual MS Word with that old Word from 1991(!!!!). Since then many features were added, but basically most of them are never used by the average user.

My step-father was using a Mac LC II until last year in combination with Word 5.1. He used the computer mainly for word processing, so he was fine with that old computer. The only reason why he bought an iBook last year was that he wanted to use the internet finally and the he wanted to be able to carry his computer around...

In many companies the main purpose for computers is Inter-/Intranet-Applications (Web-Browser), E-Mail, Word-Processing and running certain client software. For these tasks not much computing power is needed. You should what kind of computers are bought for workplaces like this these days. Low-End! Because they don't need more. Many of them still use Windows 2000 as their Standard OS. The only reason why they are starting to switch to XP is that M$ doesn't officially support 2000 anymore...

The group of people who really need a screaming fast computer is getting smaller with every day. Video-Editing, 3D-Modelling and Audio are niche-markets. I know a lot of ad agencies where the newest Mac is a Quicksilver and they don't really bother buying new machines. For the usual Photoshop and Layout work (it didn't really change over the years), the old machines are still fast enough. They are just replacing a machine when it is breaking down, still not buying the top of the line PowerMac. Who really needs to do high-end Photoshopping? Most don't...

If your needs are Internet, E-Mail and Word-Processing e.g. a Mac mini is just doing fine and will be good for still a long time to come.

For example my wife is refusing to upgrade from Mac OS X 10.3 to 10.4 on her iBook G4 (800MHz) or to get a new one any time soon... Why? That's what she said: "It does everything I need it to do, so why I should bother?"

I also want a new PowerMac, because I really need a powerful workstation in my Office for my projects. But most people really don't need that much power. It is more the toy factor I guess... In my Home-Office I still have a Quicksilver with a 2x1.3GHz Upgrade card running. For the tasks I'm doing there it is still more than powerful enough and I never have the feeling it is too slow. So I'll keep it as long as it lasts... which will be still very long I hope, since I really like that machine even though it is a bit noisy...

groovebuster
 
ksz said:
If you could split a heavy computational job into 4 parts and spread them across the 4 cores, you would be able to claim a 10 GHz computational rate. Instead of getting 2.5 GHz worth of computations per second, you would be getting 10.

you generally quote computational rate more in terms of Flops not the frequency of the clock of the chip.
 
bodeh6 said:
They have 2GB DIMMS.

If you are referring to the new iMac those are a different size. PowerBooks will use SO-DIMMs as these are optimised for portable use (just as current PowerBooks use DDR SO-DIMMs). I have yet to see anywere selling 2Gb DDR2 SO-DIMMs although I do not doubt that they will be available at some point.

And going back the the original question I doubt you will ever see 1.5Gb DIMMs!
 
PowerBook icons on Apple Store Australia

I just noticed something very interesting on the Australian Apple Store. The pictures for the PowerBooks have changed on the Australian Store, but not on any other store (as far as I know). Check the attachment.
 

Attachments

  • PowerBook.jpg
    PowerBook.jpg
    47.3 KB · Views: 590
Nereus said:
I just noticed something very interesting on the Australian Apple Store. The pictures for the PowerBooks have changed on the Australian Store, but not on any other store (as far as I know). Check the attachment.

? How have they changed?
 
Nereus said:
I just noticed something very interesting on the Australian Apple Store. The pictures for the PowerBooks have changed on the Australian Store, but not on any other store (as for as I know). Check the attachment.

I have to say, I have seen this picture on the Powerbooks before - I don't think that it means anything - I believe they used this image either the upgrade before or even the one before that. I don't think we read anything into it but I like your style!

But as a friend said to me the other day when I was talking to him about the upgrades to powerbooks at the media event - he said that I was clutching at straws... And I was.

I have resigned to the fact that I will buy when they upgrade and am advising everyone I know that wants to buy Powerbooks to wait until Tuesday/Wednesday then to just buy and to hell with it all... The PBs are still very good machines.

macam
 
~Shard~ said:
... if it's true... :p ;)

What if Apple decides to implement a 7448 and just waits for Merom instead? ;) :cool:
If that's the case, the whole DTK program is pretty stupid for telling the developers to program to the current Dothan... Why wait for a 64-bit chip when the programs and O/S are for the current 32-bit SSE2 (not even SSE3) chip?

Especially wacky since the DTK systems themselves are 64-bit SSE3 systems !!

D3LM3L said:
I could never ask for any more speed than this. It does EVERYTHING, and only gets better as you add more and more RAM (I'll have 4.5GB by next week :p).
If you "couldn't ask" for more speed, why are you adding RAM to make it faster?
 
AidenShaw said:
If that's the case, the whole DTK program is pretty stupid for telling the developers to program to the current Dothan... Why wait for a 64-bit chip when the programs and O/S are for the current 32-bit SSE2 (not even SSE3) chip?

Dothan might be the lowest common nominator among future Macs. If the develop for Dothan, all their software will run just fine on Merom, just faster :). But if the would develop for merom (for example), they might grow accustomed to capabilites that would not be present in all future Macs (since some of them would use Dothan).
 
Well, I'm still happy that I bought my PB (15"/1.33GHz) back in May last year just when Rev. B of the 15" alu PB came out. The specs haven't improved much since then and if these latest rumours are correct not much will change before the switch to Intel. The only thing I'd really appreciate would be better screen resolution, but that's not enough for me to updrage. The next time I update is when rev. B of the Intel 15" PB comes out.

Would love to get a dual-core dual-proc PM, though...
 
Nereus said:
I just noticed something very interesting on the Australian Apple Store. The pictures for the PowerBooks have changed on the Australian Store, but not on any other store (as far as I know). Check the attachment.

That just happens........if you see all the desktops on them are 10.3 and not 10.4...just some stores are lagging...happens to many ;)
 
reddelicious said:
my other option is buying a cheaper ($1300 final cost) PC HP's dv1000 and getting a mac laptop after the intel switch. any opinions would be appreciated. im running out of time... :confused:
One consideration would be "how much software do you plan to buy for the Mac"?

If the answer is "A lot", then realize that you may need to buy new copies or upgrades when the MacIntel version of the software comes out.

So, figure in twice the cost of whatever software you plan to buy (unless it's lightweight stuff that you'll be happy to run more slowly in Rosetta).

freechris said:
imagine what kind of media attention Apple wil get when this [quad core PMs] would happen :D
Quad processor and quad core x86 machines, even desktops, are old news. Look around for the latest dual dual-core Opteron workstations, several companies are selling them...

On the other hand, considering the hype that a lame iPod update and a builtin webcam in the iMac generated - maybe some papers would push real news off the front page and feature an Apple story! :eek:
 
AidenShaw said:
D3LM3L said:
I have a 2.7 G5...
I could never ask for any more speed than this. It does EVERYTHING, and only gets better as you add more and more RAM (I'll have 4.5GB by next week :p).
If you "couldn't ask" for more speed, why are you adding RAM to make it faster?
A good question. I don't know about D3LM3L, but while my current PM G4 isn't really fast enough for me, if I could add more memory, that would take care of one of the major performance issues I have.

So in my case while a dual PM G5 2.7GHz would be fast enough (for now), I'd rather get a dual dual core so the machine will last a few years. (And all the software I use has Universal Binaries available.)

As for D3LM3L, it sounds like they are focused on their own needs. They don't realize that other people use theit computers for different things and may require more power. No company would release a computer that they thought only had a very limited audience - if the machines don't sell, the company makes no money.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.