PowerBooks Updates?

[mxpiazza]

Originally posted by redAPPLE
ok guys... let's slow down for a second...

if i have my information correct, Apple usually upgrades their desktops first(!?) (processor-wise), then the notebooks...

although, it would be a great dream to have a 970 notebook within 3 weeks (it might be announced anyways...)... is this realistic?

if Apple's strategy is to make the 17" king of the notebook hill, then the 15" may not have more speed than the 17", logical?

so, my take, 17" special edition (maybe speed-bumped) and a 15" albook.

it seems as if your memory only extends as far back to the release of the G4. when apple released the G3 processor (which is a much more suitable comparison to the 970 release than is the G4), desktops and notebooks were both announced and released at the *same* time. throw in the 'year of the laptop' buisness as well as the fact that the 15" PB is loooong overdue for an update (apple is obviously waiting for something ...cough, wwdc, cough...), it is looking like there is a great possibility that we just may see the 970 not only announced in a few weeks, but announced for apple's powerbook line. let's just cross our fingers...

 

[gocanon]

Re: new powerbooks

Originally posted by LSP
Powerbooks, imacs, powermacs and ibooks all showing 30 day delivery times. Either a big mistake or a big change coming.

Where are you seeing this?

 

[solvs]

Originally posted by WM.
Oh, those were the days. We've got two 6400/180s, still going strong.

Ah, nostalgia. 🙂

Still got a working 6400/200. My P1 166 PC died years ago.

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

--Benjamin Franklin

BTW, love the sig. Still rings true (now more than ever).

 

[dongmin]

Originally posted by JBracy
Why? What do you KNOW about the 970? All I KNOW is that it is slightly (>10%) Larger, cooler, uses less power (19w@1.2GHz vs 23w@1.0GHz) and faster.

Sounds like a good candidate for a laptop to me.

For the last frickin time, the 970 does NOT run cooler than a G4 at the same clock speed.


From a Motorola document (page 5):

7455-L (rev 3.3): 15.0 watts at 1.0 ghz
7457-N: 7.5 watts at 1.0 ghz
7457-L: 16.6 watts at 1.3 ghz


From a IBM document:

970 (1.1v): 19 watts at 1.2 ghz
970 (1.3v): 43 watts at 1.8 ghz


so at 1.0 ghz, the 970 will run at 16 watts. Yes it's close, but it's not cooler! And to put in a 1.2 ghz 970 would represent 27% increase in power dissipation.

 

[DHagan4755]

Could this be the reason that Apple is now using a Lithium Prismatic battery (in their 17-inch) ?

 

[MacBandit]

Originally posted by dongmin
For the last frickin time, the 970 does NOT run cooler than a G4 at the same clock speed.


From a Motorola document (page 5):

7455-L (rev 3.3): 15.0 watts at 1.0 ghz
7457-N: 7.5 watts at 1.0 ghz
7457-L: 16.6 watts at 1.3 ghz


From a IBM document:

970 (1.1v): 19 watts at 1.2 ghz
970 (1.3v): 43 watts at 1.8 ghz


so at 1.0 ghz, the 970 will run at 16 watts. Yes it's close, but it's not cooler! And to put in a 1.2 ghz 970 would represent 27% increase in power dissipation.

It would be good to say that these specs you quote are all normal/typical power consumption and all them could use higher. The usage most people are use to throwing around for the 7455 is 22watts MAXIMUM power consumption for the 1GHz model. Also the 19watts for the PPC970 is as I said normal usage but it's only a projected number. They haven't published an actual tested number.

 

[Sun Baked]

Originally posted by MacBandit
It would be good to say that these specs you quote are all normal/typical power consumption and all them could use higher. The usage most people are use to throwing around for the 7455 is 22watts MAXIMUM power consumption for the 1GHz model. Also the 19watts for the PPC970 is as I said normal usage but it's only a projected number. They haven't published an actual tested number.

Motorola 7457 1GHz

Full Power Mode
Typical 7.5W
Maximum 12.5W

Deep Sleep Mode
Typical 2.0W

 

[Lanbrown]

Originally posted by hvfsl
But of course a PPC970 PB is only posible if the Apple adopting PPC970 rumors are true. There is some evidence to suggest that Apple may in fact not be adopting the PPC970 but continuing with the G4 or using a different chip. Remember Intel and AMD both have 64bit chips that are almost ready for release or have already been released.

Yes, but Apple would have to redo all of their software. The AMD and Intel are not compatible with each other, let alone the PowerPC. The PowerPC is not compatible with the Sun Ultra SPARC as well. Just like none of the above are compatible with the MIPS. The list goes on and on. Apple will not abandon the PowerPC, IBM hasn’t and neither has Motorola.

Before anyone mentions it. Yes, the Itanic has compatibility built-in to support X86 32-bit code, but is rather slow running it.

 

[ffakr]

Originally posted by WM.
Uh, no. I don't know what that wink is for (if it means that whole paragraph was in jest then ignore this), but when people talk about "over 20 Macs" they are talking about the Amelio era. SJ was the one who chopped the product grid way down, to 2x2.

No, the consolidation began with Amelio.
the reason he was hired was to perform Corporate Triage, to cut costs, to streamline.
He was forced out before he accomplished all his goals, but he was instrumental in the triming of the product line.

Think of the introduction of the of the Beige G3. SJ was all over that, but the G3 was launched November 10th, 1997, and Amelio resigned on July 9, 1997. You think that the move to essentially one tower and one desktop for the 'pro' line was conceived and executed in one quarter? IMHO, the Beige G3 was the first real move to a more unified product line. It brought Apple really down to one high end model. The tower and DT were the same computer with a different box.

 

[WM.]

Originally posted by ffakr
No, the consolidation began with Amelio.
the reason he was hired was to perform Corporate Triage, to cut costs, to streamline.
He was forced out before he accomplished all his goals, but he was instrumental in the triming of the product line.

Think of the introduction of the of the Beige G3. SJ was all over that, but the G3 was launched November 10th, 1997, and Amelio resigned on July 9, 1997. You think that the move to essentially one tower and one desktop for the 'pro' line was conceived and executed in one quarter? IMHO, the Beige G3 was the first real move to a more unified product line. It brought Apple really down to one high end model. The tower and DT were the same computer with a different box.

You make a good point. However, hadn't SJ essentially been in control for a few months by July? I'm thinking there could have been projects to develop other models (like the six-slot Power Express) that he killed ASAP. I'm not claiming that the beige G3 was SJ's idea--the iMac was "his" first product--after all, it should've been pretty obvious (even to Amelio) to develop the beige G3.

When was Amelio first hired (as CEO), anyway? About '95, or even '94? Before the introduction of the PCI Power Macs, the most important part of the line (the Power Macs) was pretty simple (four models, IIRC). The Performa line was pretty complicated, as I've pointed out. But I think Amelio arguably presided over an increase in the complexity of the line. Certainly it took him at least two years to make any progress at all at trimming the hardware line.

Finally, when people talk about the "Dark Ages" of Apple, they're usually referring to '96 and '97: the Amelio era. Apple was losing money like crazy. The first profitable quarter in a long time ended at the beginning of 1998--I suppose you could argue that that was a result of Amelio's efforts--but then why couldn't he have made those changes two years earlier?

WM

 

[ffakr]

Originally posted by WM.
When was Amelio first hired (as CEO), anyway? About '95, or even '94? Before the introduction of the PCI Power Macs, the most important part of the line (the Power Macs) was pretty simple (four models, IIRC).

Well, I think the 7300, 7600, 8600, and 9600 were running concurrently... and there were variation in these lines... like the 8600 and the DualProcessors.

Finally, when people talk about the "Dark Ages" of Apple, they're usually referring to '96 and '97: the Amelio era. Apple was losing money like crazy. The first profitable quarter in a long time ended at the beginning of 1998--I suppose you could argue that that was a result of Amelio's efforts--but then why couldn't he have made those changes two years earlier?

Apple fans like to point out that, although the press sounds the death knell every few months, Apple seems to keep chugging. Amelio had shortcommings. I don't think that he could have brought Apple to the point it's at now... but without his efforts, Apple would have been either out of business or at the very least, it would have been trivialized out of existence. I'm not saying that Gil made Apple what it is today, but I think he reworked the foundation. sure, the finish carpenters get the props when the house is done... but they need a good foundation to build on.

I'll see if I can get the time to get a before, during, after product line breakdown for Amelio. I don't want to make a claim and not back it up.
🙂

 

[MacBandit]

Originally posted by ffakr
Well, I think the 7300, 7600, 8600, and 9600 were running concurrently... and there were variation in these lines... like the 8600 and the DualProcessors.

Apple fans like to point out that, although the press sounds the death knell every few months, Apple seems to keep chugging. Amelio had shortcommings. I don't think that he could have brought Apple to the point it's at now... but without his efforts, Apple would have been either out of business or at the very least, it would have been trivialized out of existence. I'm not saying that Gil made Apple what it is today, but I think he reworked the foundation. sure, the finish carpenters get the props when the house is done... but they need a good foundation to build on.

I'll see if I can get the time to get a before, during, after product line breakdown for Amelio. I don't want to make a claim and not back it up.
🙂

Well I just looked it up and Gil was CEO from 1996 - July of 1997 for a wopping 17months. In that time there was little time for him to affect hardware and in fact if you look x200 series PowerMacs came out in 1995 with PCI and a host of other changes. Durring Gils time there were no significant changes in the hardware time. Looking to soon after he left the G3 chip replaced the 603 and 604 chips but this was a natural unavoidable evolution of these processors. Also there was no change in design of the hardware they were still using the same case desings that they had for nearly a decade. Now the first full design change came with the iMac in May of 1998. Now you would think that maybe Gil had a hand in that but I really don't think so since Gil never really touched the hardware. Instead he did his best to make bad business decissions and to kill the developer community. If you don't believe me do a google search for Gil and Apple and read what has been written about his business practices at Apple and how things changed for Apple developers during his tenure. I believe the iMac was something that Steve had had in his mind for a quite a while I think that his love for Apple coomputers and the designing of them had never died and it was a simple matter when he came back in to build a design he had already layed out.

 

[WM.]

Originally posted by ffakr
Well, I think the 7300, 7600, 8600, and 9600 were running concurrently... and there were variation in these lines... like the 8600 and the DualProcessors.

Apple fans like to point out that, although the press sounds the death knell every few months, Apple seems to keep chugging. Amelio had shortcommings. I don't think that he could have brought Apple to the point it's at now... but without his efforts, Apple would have been either out of business or at the very least, it would have been trivialized out of existence. I'm not saying that Gil made Apple what it is today, but I think he reworked the foundation. sure, the finish carpenters get the props when the house is done... but they need a good foundation to build on.

I'll see if I can get the time to get a before, during, after product line breakdown for Amelio. I don't want to make a claim and not back it up.
🙂

I'd appreciate that. Thanks!

Originally posted by MacBandit
Well I just looked it up and Gil was CEO from 1996 - July of 1997 for a wopping 17months.

Wow, I definitely thought it was a lot longer than that! I think I disagree with ffakr slightly less now. 🙂

In that time there was little time for him to affect hardware and in fact if you look x200 series PowerMacs came out in 1995 with PCI and a host of other changes. Durring Gils time there were no significant changes in the hardware time. Looking to soon after he left the G3 chip replaced the 603 and 604 chips but this was a natural unavoidable evolution of these processors.

Yep. I think we're in agreement here. 🙂

Also there was no change in design of the hardware they were still using the same case desings that they had for nearly a decade. Now the first full design change came with the iMac in May of 1998. Now you would think that maybe Gil had a hand in that but I really don't think so since Gil never really touched the hardware.

I've seen it written that that was SJ's project, 100%. He threw down the gauntlet and got it developed in nine months.

Instead he did his best to make bad business decissions and to kill the developer community. If you don't believe me do a google search for Gil and Apple and read what has been written about his business practices at Apple and how things changed for Apple developers during his tenure. I believe the iMac was something that Steve had had in his mind for a quite a while I think that his love for Apple coomputers and the designing of them had never died and it was a simple matter when he came back in to build a design he had already layed out.

Agreed.

WM

 

[JBracy]

Originally posted by dongmin
For the last frickin time, the 970 does NOT run cooler than a G4 at the same clock speed.


From a Motorola document (page 5):

7455-L (rev 3.3): 15.0 watts at 1.0 ghz
7457-N: 7.5 watts at 1.0 ghz
7457-L: 16.6 watts at 1.3 ghz


From a IBM document:

970 (1.1v): 19 watts at 1.2 ghz
970 (1.3v): 43 watts at 1.8 ghz


so at 1.0 ghz, the 970 will run at 16 watts. Yes it's close, but it's not cooler! And to put in a 1.2 ghz 970 would represent 27% increase in power dissipation.

Well the document I read lists the G4+ as 21.3 watts @ 1.0gHZ, and actually this document is not an IBM document but an independant review posted on IBM's website. Last time I checked 19 watts was cooler than 21.3.

Jason

 

[JBracy]

Apple

A friend just sent me apple's Quarterly employee promos (huge price drops - usually items they want to clear out before new items replace them) Included are:

all 15" PB's
all iBooks

all displays

1 gHz PowerMacs
dual 1.25 gHz PowerMacs

CRT iMac
combo and superdrive eMacs
15" iMacs

Looks like a big shakeup is about to happen!

 

[shadowfax]

Originally posted by JBracy
Well the document I read lists the G4+ as 21.3 watts @ 1.0gHZ, and actually this document is not an IBM document but an independant review posted on IBM's website. Last time I checked 19 watts was cooler than 21.3.

Jason

even if it isn't, it would probably be OK to put a 970 in at least the 17 inch powerbook. in the grand scheme of things, the processor isn't using much power in comparison to the LCD and so on. the only thing is, apple really needs some centrino-esque technology, a processor that uses less than 10 watts for sure.

maybe IBM will put some powersaving features on these by the end of the year. i am sure that could cut power usage by a huge amount.

 

[job]

Re: Apple

Originally posted by JBracy
A friend just sent me apple's Quarterly employee promos (huge price drops - usually items they want to clear out before new items replace them) Included are:

<snip>
CRT iMac
<snip>

Now why would they want to clear out something they've already discontinued?

 

[JBracy]

Because they still have a huge amunt of stock and want to get rid of it? I don't know - Why do you have a garage sale? Better to make a little money than pay someone to remove it for you.

 

[shadowfax]

i can see it now: the resurrection of the classic CRT iMac..........with an IBM 970, 1.4 GHz. *crunch* revolutionizing the consumer computer market all over again. in classic apple style too. lol 😉

 

[job]

Originally posted by Shadowfax
i can see it now: the resurrection of the classic CRT iMac..........with an IBM 970, 1.4 GHz. *crunch* revolutionizing the consumer computer market all over again. in classic apple style too. lol 😉

"The CRT is de..a...d...errrrrr.....maybe not." 😀

That would be funny. Imagine the iMac line getting the 970, the pro line staying with G4s (now 1.6Ghz! 😛) and Apple keeping the non-upgradable design of the CRT iMac. And then watch them release a newer, faster iMac every two weeks, much to the chargrin of the people who just bought them. 😛 😉 😀

 

[Silencio]

Re: PowerBooks Updates?

Originally posted by Macrumors
And unconfirmed/anonymous submission claims that the Powerbook line will see speed bumps on June 24th @ 9am at North Beach (@ WWDC).

I was going to say: they're taking over North Beach to announce new Powerbooks? Apple could have a "guerrilla" announcement by using the entire neighborhood: Apple employees whip out new Powerbooks at neighborhood cafes (Trieste, Greco, and Roma - which has great coffee and free Airport!) and early-opening bars (Vesuvio, Tony Nik's); Apple loans a few Powerbooks to City Lights Bookstore, or plants a few Powerbooks in 101 Music to demonstrate the iTunes Music Store. Heck, they could kick those clunky PC Internet terminals off the counter at Ben & Jerry's.

And then I realized all the developer tracks at WWDC were named after San Francisco neighborhoods. Silly me. 🙂

 

[MacBandit]

Originally posted by JBracy
Well the document I read lists the G4+ as 21.3 watts @ 1.0gHZ, and actually this document is not an IBM document but an independant review posted on IBM's website. Last time I checked 19 watts was cooler than 21.3.

Jason

Well the G4 is a Motorola product and not an IBM one and right out of the Motorola documentation the G4 achieves a maximum of 21 watts. It achieves an average of 15watts. The 19 watts that you are posting for the 970 is also the nominal average watts so it is 4 watts hotter.

 

[Dr.DODO]

12-inch 1 Ghz?

Another rough translation of a post on Kodawarisan.com

June 6, 2003

12-inch PowerBook G4 to 1Ghz
Apple is planning to introduce 12-inch PowerBook G4 clocked up to 1Ghz. According to information, minor changes will be made on 12- and 17-inch models at same time when new 15-inch PowerBook G4 will be introduced thus entire PowerBook line up will be renewed.

Let’s see if this “rumor” will come true this time.

 

[andyduncan]

Re: Re: PowerBooks Updates?

Originally posted by Silencio
Apple employees whip out new Powerbooks at neighborhood cafes (Trieste, Greco, and Roma - which has great coffee and free Airport!) and early-opening bars (Vesuvio, Tony Nik's)

Yeah, and if they were really taking over northbeach you can bet that there would be at least one event at centerfolds... probably on student sunday... "How to put yourself through community college."

 

[novicegeek]

The big thing I can't figure out is that if they're going to update the powerbooks to the 970 processor, why haven't the 17" gone down in price? Surely they're not going to release it in the 15" but not in the 17. And I do think that in the "year of the laptop" there's little chance of them updating the desktops to 970s and keeping the powerbooks with a slower processor. But perhaps they will.