PowerBook to gain iSight, iBook to go widescreen in 2006

[EricNau]

regarding the speed of Macs...

when was the last time you checked? 1997??

It depends what "speed" you are talking about, if it is the overall speed of the computer, Macs are much faster. If you are talking about Clock Speed, then Apple has always been slower, but clock speed is nearly useless unless comparing two processors of the same type (ie: P4 1.2 GHz : P4 1.8 GHz). (aka: Megahertz Myth)

 

[losingground]

i've always wished it were possible to hide a camera, somehow, someway, in the center of the screen, invisibly. that way you can make eye contact with whomever you're chatting with, and look at them at the same time.

if anyone could do it, or would do it first, it'd be apple.

 

[joebells]

Last time I checked Macs were much faster than PC's.

Unfortunately thats not true, look at comments from developers using the first intel machines. If I remember correctly they said that the machines were really fast, faster than the dual processor powermacs they had been using and the intel box runs only one processor and the first x86 version of osx couldn't of been that optimized. So I think we'll have some really fast machines coming

 

[EricNau]

Unfortunately thats not true, look at comments from developers using the first intel machines. If I remember correctly they said that the machines were really fast, faster than the dual processor powermacs they had been using and the intel box runs only one processor and the first x86 version of osx couldn't of been that optimized. So I think we'll have some really fast machines coming

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.

But hopefully you are right about seeing even faster computers coming.

 

[Hattig]

To those of you that say the G4 competes with a Centrino chipset... you are sadly mistaken. I have a 12" Powerbook (1 GHz) and an IBM T43p. The IBM smokes the Powerbook so bad it makes me cringe. The only reason I stick with Apple is because of OS X and the fact that they are finally moving away from such a sickly and outdated chipset that is the G4.

I can't wait for the switch. With Intel chips and Apple's OS and design - these are going to be the best laptops ever produced - like the Powerbooks were when they were first released.

Is that down to the processor, or the graphics? Are you comparing a 1GHz G4 to a 1.8GHz Pentium M for example? Have you run benchmarks? I'm pretty certain that in anything floating point related the G4 will thrash a Pentium M - it is notoriously weak at that stuff. However it will thrash a G4 in integer performance I imagine.

Oh, the T43P ships as standard with a 2GHz Dothan processor - 27W TDP and FireGL graphics. I hardly think they're comparable.

 

[gekko513]

Unfortunately thats not true, look at comments from developers using the first intel machines. If I remember correctly they said that the machines were really fast, faster than the dual processor powermacs they had been using and the intel box runs only one processor and the first x86 version of osx couldn't of been that optimized. So I think we'll have some really fast machines coming

That was just a subjective notion. The benchmarks that have been made with the developer box show that it's much slower than a dual 2.0GHz G5.

Now let me see if I can find that link.

 

[dudemac]

You BELIEVE?! A 3 year old PC beats any G4. The G4 was in the race only against the Penthium 3.

??? really that's seems a little odd to me as it stands right now a 3yr old PC would be in the Semptron 3000 (2.ghz) range and my sister has one of these systems with the same amount of RAM as my 1ghz powerbook 768MB And my Powerbook may not boot as fast (but even the Dual 2.7 doesn't boot as fast as most windows machines) but lets try encoding MPEG-4 with quicktime or ripping a CD to MP3 or doing something in photoshop.... and in all cases the powerbook is either just as good or beats the pants off the PC (in this case CD ripping is twice as fast on the powerbook). The G4 maybe old but it doesn't lack power the 1.67ghz G4 is a pretty formidable chip compared to anything but he top of the line chips. I think I would rather see duel core G4's in a laptop over the intel equivalent. But I guess there is no turning back now. Oh well I should be happy with my Quad Power Mac(when it gets here) for sometime to come.

 

[zelet]

EricNau and Mad Jew, I respect your opinions and yes, there is more to a computer than a processor. In fact, Apple has dropped the ball with every aspect of a laptop. For the same price my IBM kicks the hell out of my Powerbook. It has a better screen, better video card, faster ram, faster FSB, faster HDD (7200 RPM), better battery life, its more durable, and its the same size.

I'm a Mac fan guys, don't get me wrong, I can just see when Apple has screwed the pooch - and the current mobile line is it. They suck so bad and they are so HORRIBLY over-prices for what is essentially 3 year old hardware.

Lets just all be thankful that Apple is finally getting a chips that it can work its magic with. It'll be like the G5 only for portables.

Edited:
Hattig, the specs on mine are last generation. Mine is under 2GHz... I believe its a ~1.7GHz chip.

 

[mad jew]

Computers are far too complex to be able to make blanket statements about what is faster than what.

On an objective note, my 800MHz G4 iBook converts music in iTunes at the same speed as my 1.7GHz Pentium 4 - roughly 9x. Converting music is generally a CPU-intesive task although there are obviously many more factors.

zelet, you have some good points and I agree with you to an extent although I'm a little more optimistic about the current hardware. Either way, the switch to Intel will result in faster machines IMO.

 

[EricNau]

EricNau and Mad Jew, I respect your opinions and yes, there is more to a computer than a processor. In fact, Apple has dropped the ball with every aspect of a laptop. For the same price my IBM kicks the hell out of my Powerbook. It has a better screen, better video card, faster ram, faster FSB, faster HDD (7200 RPM), better battery life, its more durable, and its the same size.

I'm a Mac fan guys, don't get me wrong, I can just see when Apple has screwed the pooch - and the current mobile line is it. They suck so bad and they are so HORRIBLY over-prices for what is essentially 3 year old hardware.

Lets just all be thankful that Apple is finally getting a chips that it can work its magic with. It'll be like the G5 only for portables.

If you were talking purely about iBook & Powerbooks, you would be correct about Apple dropping the ball, as for the iMacs & Powermacs, they are faster than any PC I have ever used.

 

[Ramsos]

We can also elimnate firewire ports and just have two or three USB2 ports. That is it; just three USB2 and a video out port. That is all we need.

I could not disagree more with that, Firewire is of major importance on a powerbook to a person like myself, USB2 is fine for my ipod but speaking as a video editor Firewire is a must. I really love the fact that my current Powerbook and 2 firewire ports, I use one for my deck and 1 for my firewire hard drive. I realize that there is really only one firewire bus in the powerbook but this set up works great for me. FIREWIRE MUST STAY.

 

[wilburpan]

Think I might like the rumored 13" widescreen iBook though if they equip it with an HD resolution screen ...

I think very FEW people would like 1920x1080+ on a 13" screen, if they actually sat down and tried to use such a thing. Talk about fine print!

Actually, all you need for HD resolution is a display that is capable of 720 lines of horizontal resolution. Most 42" plasma HDTVs have a resolution of 1024x720, for example.

The currently available Sony VAIO TX-series notebooks have an 11.1" screen with a resolution of 1366x768, which is the same as your average 50" plasma screen.

Still, a 16:9 screen would be very nice to have on a Powerbook that is less than 15".

 

[EricNau]

I could not disagree more with that, Firewire is of major importance on a powerbook to a person like myself, USB2 is fine for my ipod but speaking as a video editor Firewire is a must. I really love the fact that my current Powerbook and 2 firewire ports, I use one for my deck and 1 for my firewire hard drive. I realize that there is really only one firewire bus in the powerbook but this set up works great for me. FIREWIRE MUST STAY.

IT BETTER STAY! Firewire is so much better/faster than USB it really isn't funny.
Besides, Apple may get a lot of people buying these Intel Powerbooks that have never owned a Mac before - This is a good way to re-introduce Firewire.

 

[Cinch]

I could not disagree more with that, Firewire is of major importance on a powerbook to a person like myself, USB2 is fine for my ipod but speaking as a video editor Firewire is a must. I really love the fact that my current Powerbook and 2 firewire ports, I use one for my deck and 1 for my firewire hard drive. I realize that there is really only one firewire bus in the powerbook but this set up works great for me. FIREWIRE MUST STAY.

wow! okay!

how about a truly portable 12" or 13" laptop
and a desktop-laptop computer 15" and/or 17" existing side-by-side

I think this is a good compromise.

Cinch

Try to observe what you do on your next business trip/meeting and you'll know what I mean.

Cinch

 

[pionata]

Computers are far too complex to be able to make blanket statements about what is faster than what.

On an objective note, my 800MHz G4 iBook converts music in iTunes at the same speed as my 1.7GHz Pentium 4 - roughly 9x. Converting music is generally a CPU-intesive task although there are obviously many more factors.

zelet, you have some good points and I agree with you to an extent although I'm a little more optimistic about the current hardware. Either way, the switch to Intel will result in faster machines IMO.

I have the same Ibook as you (800mhz 640 megs of ram) and it loads quake3, nwn and ghost recon maps faster than my 1.6 fully optimized Pentium4 with 1256megs of ram... of course then the p4 was having like 3 times the frame rate of the ibook, but still. Processor is not the only factor for a computer speed, there must be something else at work there... (And Im guessing lot of different things)

 

[ksz]

A 13" model, 20-25% thinner form factor, use of dual-core chips on new PowerBooks, presumably improved battery life, ..., all of this arriving in the first half of 2006. The spawning salmon analogy has a Literary Pulitzer written all over it BUT what about software?

Rosetta really may not be all that it's being cracked up to be. I expect to be disappointed with Rosetta's performance. Even .NET performance on Windows, despite claims of run-time compilation specifically tuned to the user's processor, performs more slugglishly than unmanaged C/C++.

Hopefully developers will be just as aggressive as Apple and will announce Universal Binaries with a vengeance come 2006.

 

[EricNau]

Processor is not the only factor for a computer speed, there must be something else at work there... (And Im guessing lot of different things)

To name a few...

• RAM
• Front Side Bus
• Cache
• HDD speed

 

[Sol]

I am excited to hear about widescreen iBooks. I just hope Apple does not do something silly like take out FireWire.

The trouble with this rumour concerns the PowerBook. I can't see Apple releasing a, x86 15" PowerBook and then waiting for a few months to release a 17" version. Would anyone buy a G4 17" while another x86 Powerbook is available?

As for the thinner design, it sounds like form has taken over function at Apple. The 5G iPod was also made thinner and that resulted in loss of FireWire. What will go in the next PowerBooks? The back-lit keyboards maybe?

 

[MacAficionado]

Originally posted by Mad Jew:

This is just the start of what will be a beautiful period in Apple's history.

Yeah, this is going to ROCK!!!

 

[kyeblue]

Are Intel dual-core systems already available?

 

[rye9]

I personally find this switch to be VERY confusing. I am going to be buying an iBook sometime in January most likely. But with the switch to Intel very soon after, its killing me to wonder if I should buy the PPC 12 in iBook or get the new Intel ones. I fear they will not be that perfect though bc they are rev.A, but u never know, they could be awesome. Also, Intel iBooks cant be that much better than current iBooks bc its not like the current ones are so slow, they sell very well. Does any1 have any opinions whether or not I should buy the last PPC iBook or an Intel one?

 

[EricNau]

Are Intel dual-core systems already available?

Yes, they are the Pentium D.
Sony has some on their Vaio Desktops.

 

[ksz]

Are Intel dual-core systems already available?

Not sure what you mean. Intel's dual-core desktop processors (Pentium D) have been available in volume for several months. Intel's dual-core mobile processors (Yonah, Merom, etc.) are not shipping in any laptop yet. Yonah has been sampling for some time and production is ramping up. Merom will follow Yonah near the end of 2006.

 

[EricNau]

Not sure what you mean. Intel's dual-core desktop processors (Pentium D) have been available in volume for several months. Intel's dual-core mobile processors (Yonah, Merom, etc.) are not shipping in any laptop yet. Yonah has been sampling for some time and production is ramping up. Merom will follow Yonah near the end of 2006.

Are they going to stick with the names Yonah & Merom? Or will they be changed?

 

[Multimedia]

Gotta Get AppleCare Anyway

Man that sounds sweet... but there's no way I'll be buying the Rev. A version of a notebook with that many changes.

It will be tempting though!

With the AppleCare that we gotta buy with any portable, we'll be covered for any surprises anyway. Dual core will seriously rock. That and a 17" 1650 x 1050 will be a killer REAL PowerBook.