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 to gain iSight, iBook to go widescreen in 2006
- Thread starter runninmac
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Consider the following...
Unless Apple goes and develops a new line of optical drives that are physically smaller (or leaves one out all together), making their powerbooks any smaller will not be possible.
Allow me to explain.
The Matshita UJ-845B Slotloading Optical Drive used in the Powerbooks is 1/8" thinner than the powerbook itself. That being the case, the only location that they could take the space from is the screen itself. Given the size of current LCD Panels and backlights, it would really not be possible for them to do that.
I could imagine them reducing the size of the 12" powerbooks as they are already pretty oversized. It is also surprising to see the 12" weigh in as the same as my 17".
It would be a little more likely that they make the units 20% lighter through reducing the weight of the materials used in the production, however reducing the height may not be physically possible unless they have convinced an optical drive manufacturer into some really interesting redesigns.
Unless Apple goes and develops a new line of optical drives that are physically smaller (or leaves one out all together), making their powerbooks any smaller will not be possible.
Allow me to explain.
The Matshita UJ-845B Slotloading Optical Drive used in the Powerbooks is 1/8" thinner than the powerbook itself. That being the case, the only location that they could take the space from is the screen itself. Given the size of current LCD Panels and backlights, it would really not be possible for them to do that.
I could imagine them reducing the size of the 12" powerbooks as they are already pretty oversized. It is also surprising to see the 12" weigh in as the same as my 17".
It would be a little more likely that they make the units 20% lighter through reducing the weight of the materials used in the production, however reducing the height may not be physically possible unless they have convinced an optical drive manufacturer into some really interesting redesigns.
samh004 said:I'm not looking forward to having an iSight built into a PB, I already have an iSight, and it's much better outside the enclosure where you can point it in any direction you need. It also has a shutter to make sure no ones looking when you least expect it... I don't believe the iMac has one, and neither would the PB's...
Also, how exactly do you fit a iSight into the display when it's already less than a cm thick.
I would much prefer an iSight in the consumer laptop, the iBook, and then keep the external one for the PB, they could bundle it just so you weren't getting any less.
"Road warriors rejoice. With the new Powerbook's built-in iSight camera, you can videoconference right from your hotel room without any bulky, expenisve equipment."
Powerbooks can be marketed at businesses too, not just creative pros.
EDIT: Oh yeah, and the iSight will make it to the iBook too. Just not right away.
thickness reduction
On the surface, I would agree with you. Using current technologies a 20 to 25% reduction in thickness is unlikely.
However, what of newer technologies, most likely in screen thickness. I understand that LED screens are thinner, lighter and consume much less power. Is it possible that Apple has sourced a supplier of such technology?
Are there other technologies that might account for the thinner rumour?
Time will tell. However I was considering purchasing one of the new 17" PBs. Now I'll have to think about it a little longer....
~iGuy
projectle said:
On the surface, I would agree with you. Using current technologies a 20 to 25% reduction in thickness is unlikely.
However, what of newer technologies, most likely in screen thickness. I understand that LED screens are thinner, lighter and consume much less power. Is it possible that Apple has sourced a supplier of such technology?
Are there other technologies that might account for the thinner rumour?
Time will tell. However I was considering purchasing one of the new 17" PBs. Now I'll have to think about it a little longer....
~iGuy
922 said:
If Apple includes an iSight in every PB (ie it is not a BTO option) then they will lose ALL defense industry sales. Not sure about you, but I would want my computer company to be in a position to take a bite out of a 400+ BILLION dollar industry.
Hickman
Brian Hickman said:
I am sure they could build custom PB for defence if required, is not like they had to redesign the product. They'll just leave the thing empty
Maybe include Front Row.
When are the Yonah chips supposed to ship- perhaps in January? (a PC maker may be the first to offer a notebook with that chip before Apple does)
When are the Yonah chips supposed to ship- perhaps in January? (a PC maker may be the first to offer a notebook with that chip before Apple does)
Maybe Apple would be the first, they could have some deal with Intel. - Well, I can dream can't I?aafuss1 said:
cemorris said:
I'm no expert on OLED but from what I know (and could be wrong) is that it is slightly thinner. But the real advantage is in weight and power consumption. However, I'm also pretty sure that they aren't close to making a 15" oled display that is even slightly affordable. The only places you see oled displays now are car stereos, cell phones and pda-type stuff.
aafuss1 said:
Yup. Jan '06 will see the first Yonah chips, followed by more Yonah Chips throughout the year, with Merom chips making a debut somewhere in the 2nd half of 2006.
It always depends on what you wonna do with a PowerBook. For surfing the net and doing some word processing it is still OK. But there are many pro users out there who need a mobile workstation with as much bang as they can get in a laptop.PlaceofDis said:
That's why I switched to a Windows XP Laptop with a Pentium M processor last fall. I needed a small and light-weight laptop with as much power as I could get. I ended up with a Fujitsu-Siemens Lifebook S6120 which is comparable to a 12" PowerBook in size (it also has a screen resolution of 1024x768 and a 1.6GHz Pentium M processor). But a big advantage is the weight! A 12" PowerBook weighs 2.1kg, my FSC laptop only 1.7kg. Something you can really feel when you have to carry it around most of thime. On top my screen is 13.3" but the laptop still is about the same size as the 12" PowerBook. And it doesn't look too ugly beside a PowerBook...
It still wipes the floor with any PowerBook you can buy, even though it is more than a year old now and it is only a compromise between size/weight and speed (just check out that thread about speed tests in Photoshop, my Laptop scores 1min 47sec, the fastest(!) current PowerBook 2min 3sec).
Seems that I did the right decision back then since Apple is switching to Intel anyway now... Next fall I'll be ready to replace my Laptop and we will see what Apple has to offer then. Hopefully the rev. B of the Intel PowerBooks.
groovebuster
Platform said:And this is because, USB has a 4 pin connector and FW has 6 both have 2 for power but FW has 4 for data vs 2
In that case, where's my SCSI connector!
EricNau said:So true.
And there is so much more to processor than just clock speed.
One very important thing that contributes to the overall speed of a computer is the Front Side Bus - Something Apple has done well with, 1.25 GHz!
AMD has done it even better.
Yes, there are more to performance than mere CPU. FSB is another important matter. And on Laptops, Apple absolutely sucks on the FSB-front. On desktop (iMac and PowerMac), things are better, but even there are some things that are holding Macs back. Macs don't do SLI, PC's do. PC's have better expendability (although it can be disputed whether this is a "performance"-issue as such). Then we have the issue of RAM. The DDR2-RAM on iMac and Powermac is pretty slow when compared to PC-side.
Things could be better for Apple. G5 is a fine chip, no question about it. But even it and the machines that use it, are not superior to PC's in all aspects.
EricNau said:I don't know, all reports I've seen have pointed towards Apple. (Especially the ones reported by Apple)
And I was comparing Macs out right now, to PC's out right now. Not Intel Macs vs Current Macs.
If you compare laptops, Macs lose, and they lose badly. If you compare desktops (PowerMacs), Macs are competetive, but they don't wipe the floor with PC's (althought he Quad has very good price/performance-ratio).
hvfsl said:
No they are not. I have seen the benchmarks, and Opteron (or rather, A64) is faster than Pentium-M, clock-for-clock.
AidenShaw said:
Uh, I believe that on the G5 the FSB has two 32bit bus running in one direction, whereas Intel has one 64bit bus running in both directions. So as far as "bitness" is concerned, the two are more or less equal, they are just different.
A diagram to illustrate:
G5
CPU ===32bit===> Chipset
CPU <===32bit=== Chipset
Intel
CPU <===64bit===> Chipset
Exactly!Evangelion said:
The problem is that most "Maccies" don't want to hear that... The Mac for them is superior by definition.
In fact there are workflows where it really doesn't matter a lot if you are using Mac OS X or Windows XP underneath. In these cases I don't get why I should go with a Mac even though it would mean a big performance penalty. So at the moment that means for me: Laptop -> Windows XP, Workstations -> Mac OS X.
I really like the Mac OS as a platform, but in some areas it is all about getting a job done fast. Since we will have Intel processors under hood from next year on, this probably will not be a concern anymore and the question of the speed and the OS used finally is not related to the processor platform anymore. Then we can finally decide for the better OS without being influenced by the processor speed. It will be the same hardware anyway...
And if everything goes well (hopefully) I'll be all Mac again then...
groovebuster
I can see Apple laptops becoming thinner by way of a miniaturized MB like the Sonys. Apple may decide to use 1.5" HDs in capacities of 60, 80 and 100 GBs. They may also forego the firewire cable and come out with an iPod dock style connector that can carry both FW and USB. As a last step to make the laptops even thinner, the MB and ICs will be etched on the chassis itself.
And if we can the prices down a point where the leading PC laptops are, (take Sony for example), then a direct comparison should be easier. The only major things that hold people I talk to back from a Mac is tech spec differences, (which I try to explain my way around), and software compatibility. Take away the first and you are left with a mere software problem. Easier to make that switch, mentally.groovebuster said:
Val-kyrie said:
Well it's like the transition from analogue to digital TV over here in the UK, however the lack of inclusion of a components causes the same problem.
People aren't budging, because of a number of reasons.
People aren't going to budge and get digital TV until:
1. The analogue signal is switched off and they have nothing to watch
2. They intergrate Digital TV decoders in ALL new television sets.
Basically until there is no reason not to adopt new technology.
It's like if studios were to not bother cutting the production of VHS versions of films.
People like my mom would not find the need to purchase a DVD player. She only has one now because she had one bought her.
Does anyone see the point I'm trying to make here?
Val-kyrie said:
It would.
Val-kyrie said:
True that would annoy people.
