Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Powerbook Rumors Again
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I think perhaps it is more of a question of value. If you plan on buying a laptop why would you want to spend the same amount on what will be 20-30% faster and better in 6 weeks. I want value for my purchases which is why I only buy right after an update. That said, I think it is a huge assumption to think that students don't need Powerbooks. I really have no idea but I would be afraid to make that assumption.
Again, it's a question of when you need it. 20-30% better in 6 weeks isn't worthwhile if you need it in 1 week. People starting college should definitely wait as long as possible but I can't imagine starting college without a computer-- they had me busily working away on mine before the first week was over.
Nemesis
macrumors regular
G5 is fabricated on 130 nm process, uses lower voltage and is better integrated than G4. Not to mention 800, 900 or 1GHz buses. 1.2 GHz G5 iz cooler than G4 at the same tact.
But I think Apple is keeping their mouth shut about this to silence all rumours about G5 laptops. Otherwise, their laptop sales would go down the drain. I think they're to be introduced at SF Expo, January 2004, and available somewhere in February/March 2004.
Catfish_Man
macrumors 68030
As far as Im concerned, I will ONLY purchase a new PB if its at 1.33G4 or G5.
I have a Ti400 and a 1G is more than adequate for my needs. But when I compare it to a Dell @ 2.8GHz - I feel that Apple users are entitled to something comparable in speed (about 1.4G4).
So for now Im prepared to keep my money in my pocket until there is a fair and reasonable update to Apple's PB line.
Oh BTW, the 7457 @ 1GHz uses <10W, I think they should differentiate the 17" model by using 2 CPU's. The 15" should/will no doubt have the fastest CPU Apple can employ in a PB.
I would prefer they went to G5's for the PB's and leave the 7457's for the iBooks/iMacs!. Just my 2 cents! 😱
I have a Ti400 and a 1G is more than adequate for my needs. But when I compare it to a Dell @ 2.8GHz - I feel that Apple users are entitled to something comparable in speed (about 1.4G4).
So for now Im prepared to keep my money in my pocket until there is a fair and reasonable update to Apple's PB line.
Oh BTW, the 7457 @ 1GHz uses <10W, I think they should differentiate the 17" model by using 2 CPU's. The 15" should/will no doubt have the fastest CPU Apple can employ in a PB.
I would prefer they went to G5's for the PB's and leave the 7457's for the iBooks/iMacs!. Just my 2 cents! 😱
Motorola already has G4s in production
In a Silicon Strategies interview dated 6/23/2003, Claudine Simson, the chief technology officer of Motorola's semiconductor products sector stated that the PowerPC processors made on a 130-nm SOI process are "now moving out". Since G4 processors made for Apple are the first to receive bleeding edge upgrades from Motorola, then it's obvious that faster G4s are already in production. It should only be a few weeks before Apple announces upgrades for G4 Macs.
Also in the last paragraph of the interview Ms. Simson states that test chips of PowerPC processors are already being done on a 90-nm process and it will be in production in 2004. Motorola has also announced that a dual-cpu G4 has been given the OK for production. So I'd expect to see a dual-cpu G4 chip at the 90-nm level in the second half of 2004. Which means at least the desktop Macs and possibly a Xserve model will be using dual-cpu chips in 2004.
In a Silicon Strategies interview dated 6/23/2003, Claudine Simson, the chief technology officer of Motorola's semiconductor products sector stated that the PowerPC processors made on a 130-nm SOI process are "now moving out". Since G4 processors made for Apple are the first to receive bleeding edge upgrades from Motorola, then it's obvious that faster G4s are already in production. It should only be a few weeks before Apple announces upgrades for G4 Macs.
Also in the last paragraph of the interview Ms. Simson states that test chips of PowerPC processors are already being done on a 90-nm process and it will be in production in 2004. Motorola has also announced that a dual-cpu G4 has been given the OK for production. So I'd expect to see a dual-cpu G4 chip at the 90-nm level in the second half of 2004. Which means at least the desktop Macs and possibly a Xserve model will be using dual-cpu chips in 2004.
Why Apple may have decided to not put a G5 in PowerBooks until Jan 2004
The current production 970 (G5) has low enough power use for a PowerBook if its run at 1.2 GHz on low voltage. However Apple would be restricted to using only the 1.2 GHz G5 due to the higher MHz G5s requiring heatsinks that would make them too thick for the thin PowerBooks cases. So if Apple put a 1.2 GHz G5 in PowerBooks this August then there could not be another speed upgrade for PowerBooks until the G5 moves to a smaller process in the second half of 2004. So Apple quite possibly decided to give the PowerBooks another G4 speed upgrade this August and then the 1.2 GHz G5 in January and finally moving it to as high as 1.7 GHz on a smaller process size in July of 2004. The reason a G5 PowerBook could jump from 1.2 GHz to 1.7 GHz is due about a 60% drop in power use when the G5 is made on a 90-nm process.
Doing this Apple is able to refresh the PowerBook speeds more frequently which keeps sales from steadily falling over a 12 month period.
The current production 970 (G5) has low enough power use for a PowerBook if its run at 1.2 GHz on low voltage. However Apple would be restricted to using only the 1.2 GHz G5 due to the higher MHz G5s requiring heatsinks that would make them too thick for the thin PowerBooks cases. So if Apple put a 1.2 GHz G5 in PowerBooks this August then there could not be another speed upgrade for PowerBooks until the G5 moves to a smaller process in the second half of 2004. So Apple quite possibly decided to give the PowerBooks another G4 speed upgrade this August and then the 1.2 GHz G5 in January and finally moving it to as high as 1.7 GHz on a smaller process size in July of 2004. The reason a G5 PowerBook could jump from 1.2 GHz to 1.7 GHz is due about a 60% drop in power use when the G5 is made on a 90-nm process.
Doing this Apple is able to refresh the PowerBook speeds more frequently which keeps sales from steadily falling over a 12 month period.
daveL
macrumors 68020
Re: Motorola already has G4s in production
Sorry for the rant. I spend too much time on this forum and get tired of the same lame stuff over and over (I'm between gigs).
As for the low-end Apple desktop and portable line, I could see the newer G4 (and G3) CPUs being used for some time to come.
Anyway, it's just my $0.02. I didn't mean to offend anyone.
I don't get this comment. There will not be, in my opinion, another generation of G4 Xservers. Whatever you're smokin', I'd like some. People on this board seem to ignore the fact that IBM has targeted the 970 for *blade server* configs, i.e. the most dense, rack-mounted, power- sensitive applications you can design in the server market. This is targeted for this year, not 2004. Why do this with the 970?: Because it uses a sh*t load (that's a techical term) less power than their Power4/4+ CPUs and is intended for horizontally scalable, low cost sever systems (e.g. Web servers). I keep seeing people post here that Apple can't produce a dual cpu Xserver with G5s because of heat. That's pure BS. If IBM can produce a rack of blades with the 970, then a dual CPU Xserver in 1U is a walk in the park, easy, a no brainer. Why would Apple continue to produce G4 Xservers in light of the G5? Apple is about content serving / media. It's about rendering farms and such. They, unlike Sun / HP / IBM, care about audio and video serving, not about general IT server requirements. For Xserver, G5 is a must. There is no reason for Apple to maintain a low-end Xserver line that continues to use the G4; it's all about speed in the Xserver, IMO.
Sorry for the rant. I spend too much time on this forum and get tired of the same lame stuff over and over (I'm between gigs).
As for the low-end Apple desktop and portable line, I could see the newer G4 (and G3) CPUs being used for some time to come.
Anyway, it's just my $0.02. I didn't mean to offend anyone.
How many people have bought Macs for their "power"? Apple intentionally markets itself as delivering style (in addition to eventually-debunked claims about power) to its customers. Further, Apple makes claims about its ability to be innovative about style.
So, I think it's completely reasonable for people to be upset with Apple - not only for failing to deliver the new style in this key form factor, but for disrespecting its customer base by keeping silent about it. I don't buy claims that admitting to a 9-month (or more, let's be realistic) delay would them more than unending uncertainty and cycles of hopes and disappointments.
If I sound bitter, it's because I write this as one who awaits receipt of hs new Toshiba laptop ... I've been a devoted Mac user since 1987, but my research unit just couldn't defer purchase any longer without any definitive sign from Apple. Businesses need vendors they can trust.
As for all those who've written, in these forums, that folks should just stop whining and "go buy a Dell", I want to point out that it's just this sort of peurile arrogance that continues to keep Apple marginalized ....
Hopefully, Apple will be more consistent in two years when I can start arguing to switch back to a Powerbook ...
Re: Re: Motorola already has G4s in production
I like your point. But more of your authority is lost with each reference to the "Xserver". It's Xserve. (sorry for off-topic-ness)
The problem most of us are having is that a 167 Mhz bus fits with the 1.25 Ghz and 1.33 Ghz, however it does not with the 1.1 Ghz. It would appear that only a 200 Mhz bus would fit with the 1.1 Ghz, since 100 Mhz is very unlikely (and a multiplier of 11x... that's a lot.)
I like your point. But more of your authority is lost with each reference to the "Xserver". It's Xserve. (sorry for off-topic-ness)
The problem most of us are having is that a 167 Mhz bus fits with the 1.25 Ghz and 1.33 Ghz, however it does not with the 1.1 Ghz. It would appear that only a 200 Mhz bus would fit with the 1.1 Ghz, since 100 Mhz is very unlikely (and a multiplier of 11x... that's a lot.)
DHagan4755
macrumors 68020
AidenShaw
macrumors P6
Panther is only 32-bit, right?
There was no announcement at WWDC that said that Panther would be a true 64-bit O/S, was there?
Lots of ambiguous stuff about "optimized for G5", but no "64-bit porting" sessions or other clear messages about true 64-bit support.
The Apple Panther page ( http://www.apple.com/macosx/panther/ ) doesn't have the term "64-bit" anywhere. I don't think they'd fail to mention something that significant.
There was no announcement at WWDC that said that Panther would be a true 64-bit O/S, was there?
Lots of ambiguous stuff about "optimized for G5", but no "64-bit porting" sessions or other clear messages about true 64-bit support.
The Apple Panther page ( http://www.apple.com/macosx/panther/ ) doesn't have the term "64-bit" anywhere. I don't think they'd fail to mention something that significant.
chip type
So the new powerbooks will have a moto chip # 7457.
My question is this: what chip # do the current powerbooks sport, and does a new chip mean that the same clock speed is faster, or does it just enable a computer to reach a higher clock speed?
And, even though the new pbs will be undoubtedly (if that is a word) awesome, how can one justify buying one with '3 ghz powermacs' g5 powebooks (probably with all-new case designs) set to arrive within 12 months. Even at 1.4 ghz, the new Al books will start to seem sluggish within 24 months.
Zach
So the new powerbooks will have a moto chip # 7457.
My question is this: what chip # do the current powerbooks sport, and does a new chip mean that the same clock speed is faster, or does it just enable a computer to reach a higher clock speed?
And, even though the new pbs will be undoubtedly (if that is a word) awesome, how can one justify buying one with '3 ghz powermacs' g5 powebooks (probably with all-new case designs) set to arrive within 12 months. Even at 1.4 ghz, the new Al books will start to seem sluggish within 24 months.
Zach
ZildjianKX
macrumors 68000
Re: chip type
7455 I believe is the current processor in G4 powerbooks, and the 1.3 GHz is suppose to be 40% faster than the 1 GHz, so clock-for-clock that would make it faster.
And about your 2nd point... its hard to justify a G4 powerbook now period...
7455 I believe is the current processor in G4 powerbooks, and the 1.3 GHz is suppose to be 40% faster than the 1 GHz, so clock-for-clock that would make it faster.
And about your 2nd point... its hard to justify a G4 powerbook now period...
if the new* 12'' has L3 cache, > 1GHz speed and backlit keys I AM BUYING!!!
*assuming it comes sometime before Christmas 😉
*assuming it comes sometime before Christmas 😉
WTF? Then buy a computer at the beginning of next month for school.
What's with the whining? You could just go on forever not buying anything, perpetually waiting for the next PowerBook, the next t-shirt, the next iron, the next Hyundai, the next orange juice...
Re: wait and see
Panther is apparently going to be semi-64 bits. The entire address space of the G5s will be accessible to the OS, but any one process cannot access more than 4 GB (32 bits).
Panther is apparently going to be semi-64 bits. The entire address space of the G5s will be accessible to the OS, but any one process cannot access more than 4 GB (32 bits).
AidenShaw
macrumors P6
Re: Re: wait and see
Sorry, but that's "32-bits", not "semi 64-bits".
32-bit Windows and Linux support 64 GiB of RAM (36-bit physical addressing) on today's 32-bit Pentium chips, and nobody claims anything about it being more than 32-bits. (Check the HP xw8000 Xeon workstation, up the 12 GiB of RAM today (http://www.hp.com/workstations/ia32/xw8000/).
30 years ago 16-bit PDP-11s supported more than 16-bits of physical RAM, and nobody claimed anything more than a 16-bit CPU and operating system with extended physical addressing.
Sorry, but that's "32-bits", not "semi 64-bits".
32-bit Windows and Linux support 64 GiB of RAM (36-bit physical addressing) on today's 32-bit Pentium chips, and nobody claims anything about it being more than 32-bits. (Check the HP xw8000 Xeon workstation, up the 12 GiB of RAM today (http://www.hp.com/workstations/ia32/xw8000/).
30 years ago 16-bit PDP-11s supported more than 16-bits of physical RAM, and nobody claimed anything more than a 16-bit CPU and operating system with extended physical addressing.