The 12" PB: A Story of Negligence?

[Electric Monk]

When they released the Radeon 9700 Mobile in the Powerbooks they were one of the original 3? computer companies to do so. So at that point they were cutting edge.

The Radeon 9600 was also a top of the line card when it was in the Powerbooks.

I don't know if they actually make 128MB Geforce 5200 Go's, I am however pretty sure that the card supports that amount of memory.

13.3" would be a little wider, maybe not even that much wider if they reduced the bezel around the screen.

Since Powerbooks desperately need a new motherboard (regardless of the chip they need PCI Express, DDR2 memory support, and integrated Wireless and bluetooth rather then separate card/modules as of now) they could probably shave enough weight off to match or better the current 12"

Even if they did complain a nice ultralight widescreen 10" like the Sony X505 using that upcoming 80 GB 4200 RPM 1.8" drive sans optical drive but with most of the features of the 13.3" except slower would go a long way… How about it Apple?

Before we go there, yes the X505 is missing useful features (Wireless for example), but I'm talking about something similar, just not quite as radical - but not as thick and ugly as a lot of those 10" widescreens I see around on campus.

 

[j_maddison]

The Powerbook marque should imply a reasonable set of standards across the line. The 'low end' 'used for writting(sic)' is the 12" iBook.

I agree with you whole heartedly. The point is that no one buys a 12" PB because its cheaper, well maybe some do, but for most I think they buy the 12" PB for its portability. That doesn't mean they don't want the same functionality that the 15" & 17" PBs have.

I don't see why people need a backlit keyboard, being a touch typist, but I'm not arrogant enough to run around condeming people who believe they would see a benefit from having that feature. So lets stop being silly and telling people they don't need a better graphics card, when clearly they beleve they do.

I think the point is this, Apples profits are at a high at the moment and I'm sure they would win many more switchers and more sales from upgrades, if their laptops were more fully loaded. Apple have the money to afford to be able to take lower premiums on their products, and largers sales volumes increase economies of scale. So it's about time Apple gave us something better, and I'd even go as far as saying that should be a gig of RAM as standard across all of the pro ranges, and possibly the imac as well.

Quick question guys, is there a reason why gprs or 3G couldn't be supported on a 12" PB? It was the bain of my life in my last job because wifi hotspots arent always available.

Jason

 

[Lau]

I love the proportions of the 12" screen. The 15" and the 17" are just too...long. The 12" is all nice and squarish.

 

[tutubibi]

Widescreen go away, bring me longscreen please

I love the proportions of the 12" screen. The 15" and the 17" are just too...long. The 12" is all nice and squarish.

Completely agree with you. I hate this wide-screen mania in notebooks. Like everybody will be just watching DVDs on them all the time.

I need long-screen versions. For developers and sys admins it makes more sense to see more lines of code or commands in terminal window. I think even Word/Excel people would prefer more rows than columns.

 

[mkrishnan]

I need long-screen versions. For developers and sys admins it makes more sense to see more lines of code or commands in terminal window. I think even Word/Excel people would prefer more rows than columns.

I'm with you, liking the 12" proportions altogether, unless the screen gets so wide in terms of pixels that I can effectively put two windows side-by-side. I guess if I can get at least 1400 pixels across, then this becomes a real possibility.... But then the laptop will be kind awkward....

 

[Lau]

Yeah, my bloke's got a PC laptop (the boy needs his Half Life 2, don't worry, I tried ) which is 15.1" but more like a 14" iBook in proportions, ie taller. I really like the screen - it feels big, but no bigger than a 15" PowerBook, and anything portrait shaped - web, Word, Photoshop, most stuff, actually - seems a bit nicer to use.

Obviously, the OS makes me want to snap it over my knee, but that's to be expected....

 

[drlunanerd]

Quick question guys, is there a reason why gprs or 3G couldn't be supported on a 12" PB? It was the bain of my life in my last job because wifi hotspots arent always available.

Because it doesn't have a PC Card slot? I don't know of any 3G/GPRS adaptors that don't come in the PC Card format, so there's your problem. AFAIK the Vodafone 3G/GPRS PC Card works in the 15" and 17" PowerBooks (drivers recently became available).

 

[j_maddison]

Because it doesn't have a PC Card slot? I don't know of any 3G/GPRS adaptors that don't come in the PC Card format, so there's your problem. AFAIK the Vodafone 3G/GPRS PC Card works in the 15" and 17" PowerBooks (drivers recently became available).

Apologies, I should have made my question a little clearer. I know the reason it isnt supported is because there isnt a card slot. I guess my question was could there be a way of overcoming this and either introducing a card slot somewhere, or introduce the capability of inserting a sim card into the powerbook. A 3G/GPRS card basically houses a sim card.

Maybe there is just no room in the powerbook to do this, I honestly dont know. Just wondered if it could be possible to add the feature.

Thanks

jay

 

[mkrishnan]

Maybe there is just no room in the powerbook to do this, I honestly dont know. Just wondered if it could be possible to add the feature.

I think companies have held off on this as a built-in feature because they didn't view the technology as stable, although GPRS seems to have even more longevity than I care for it to have (in lieu of 3G ). I know it isn't perfect, but how close would a GSM/GPRS phone with BT be to your needs? They're very cheaply available, and you can use it while it's still sitting in your bag next to you, so it isn't too clunky. As long as you don't have a specific need for a phone that doesn't support acting as a BT modem.

 

[AlmostThere]

Thanks

Thanks for this thread. It has mirrored some of my thoughts over the last two weeks or so and it's reassuring to know similar frustrations are felt elsewhere.

I am looking to upgrade my iBook principally because I want to drive 18" and 19" screens from it and to give a boost to the processing power and graphics (I use assorted scientific processing / visualisation programs).

I love my 12" iBook, it is excellent for a portable laptop and I really hoped to get the 12" PB but the actual graphics upgrade is something I always questioned so I think I will end up getting the 15". It seems a real shame personally, to have to sacrifice the portability to get "good enough" functionality. I can't really wait for upgrades, or risk another wait for a last revision still with a GeForce5200 and reliability is very important to me (hence an Apple, of course!) so I don't want an untested RevA product.

I only hope that the 15" offers me "good enough" portability and battery life so that it gets as much use I expect it to have (iB is working 12-15 hrs a day at moment!). Naturally, I am going to check them out in the flesh in the next few days before finally putting the cash down but it looks like the decision is really made - it is painful to think of some of the convenience I need to sacrifice and I have little doubt I will miss the iB12 greatly

The only other comment that springs to mind is that moving from 12" to 13" PB would mean that the iBook becomes Apple's nearest thing to an ultra-portable. It is somewhat smaller than the iBook 12", put them side-by-side and see, which is how I have generally thought of it earning its place in the 'power' line (which I kinda think are pretty arbitrary, marketing oriented boundaries anyway). Personally, albeit somewhat unlikely, maybe a 13" PB will be complemented by a 10" to reach to this market which seems to me (with no figures to back it up) to be pretty popular ... maybe 15" and 17" models using a G5/dual-Core and the 10" using a slower G4 but earning its place in the line through form factor and executive, rather than 'pro' target market.

Ok, the only other, other comment I would make is that, imho, many Apples are rather graphics limited (BTO not withstanding). The PowerMacs basically still use the 5200 as the standard GPU and this is also found in the new iMac. It seems crazy to me (still using x86 on the desktop, and considering Apples integral view of the GPU in the desktop display) that Apple have not put updated chips in either of these lines, although both should be due an upgrade soon. iMacs should be at least 9600XT (i.e. mobility 9700 - if it fits in a PB it will fit in an iMac) across the line and Powermacs at least 9800XT across the line as standard, ideally with the Powerbooks on a mobility 9800.

 

[Kreamy]

Thanks for this thread. It has mirrored some of my thoughts over the last two weeks or so and it's reassuring to know similar frustrations are felt elsewhere.

I am looking to upgrade my iBook principally because I want to drive 18" and 19" screens from it and to give a boost to the processing power and graphics (I use assorted scientific processing / visualisation programs).

I love my 12" iBook, it is excellent for a portable laptop and I really hoped to get the 12" PB but the actual graphics upgrade is something I always questioned so I think I will end up getting the 15". It seems a real shame personally, to have to sacrifice the portability to get "good enough" functionality. I can't really wait for upgrades, or risk another wait for a last revision still with a GeForce5200 and reliability is very important to me (hence an Apple, of course!) so I don't want an untested RevA product.

I only hope that the 15" offers me "good enough" portability and battery life so that it gets as much use I expect it to have (iB is working 12-15 hrs a day at moment!). Naturally, I am going to check them out in the flesh in the next few days before finally putting the cash down but it looks like the decision is really made - it is painful to think of some of the convenience I need to sacrifice and I have little doubt I will miss the iB12 greatly

The only other comment that springs to mind is that moving from 12" to 13" PB would mean that the iBook becomes Apple's nearest thing to an ultra-portable. It is somewhat smaller than the iBook 12", put them side-by-side and see, which is how I have generally thought of it earning its place in the 'power' line (which I kinda think are pretty arbitrary, marketing oriented boundaries anyway). Personally, albeit somewhat unlikely, maybe a 13" PB will be complemented by a 10" to reach to this market which seems to me (with no figures to back it up) to be pretty popular ... maybe 15" and 17" models using a G5/dual-Core and the 10" using a slower G4 but earning its place in the line through form factor and executive, rather than 'pro' target market.

Ok, the only other, other comment I would make is that, imho, many Apples are rather graphics limited (BTO not withstanding). The PowerMacs basically still use the 5200 as the standard GPU and this is also found in the new iMac. It seems crazy to me (still using x86 on the desktop, and considering Apples integral view of the GPU in the desktop display) that Apple have not put updated chips in either of these lines, although both should be due an upgrade soon. iMacs should be at least 9600XT (i.e. mobility 9700 - if it fits in a PB it will fit in an iMac) across the line and Powermacs at least 9800XT across the line as standard, ideally with the Powerbooks on a mobility 9800.

Agreed, however, you must understand that the iMac is designed with the mainstream consumer in mind - These are the same people that use Intel Integrated Extreme graphics in their PCs - so the FX5200 Ultra is really a step up.

Another thing is that the PC market has a much larger demand for graphics intensive apps such as GAMES! People know not to buy a mac for games but instead it has games as an added option - and isnt really designed to be good at them. The only other graphics intensive applications are the 3d design programs - and 3d designers use Pmacs that can be upgraded with whatever graphics that they want.

So wheres the problem in the current line of graphics? My Snow ibook seems to run most games just fine and is perfect for my day to day use

 

[AlmostThere]

So wheres the problem in the current line of graphics?

Speaking from my own perspective, obviously

It is in part a reflection of what I expect for a given expenditure in terms of performance. Obviously Apple are free to target markets with products of their own design based on price / performance etc. but it is always frustrating when there is something you have to compromise in the OS / performance / price / software / requirements equations you have to solve when purchasing new hardware.

I like a game of HalfLife as much as the next person but it is also frustrating when you are waiting for a set of several million data to render. The frustration (low fps or waiting for render) is fought with the financial outlay for a higher spec machine. However, when the outlay would be small and easily available (c.f. current radeon retail prices, radeons in low end PC laptops) the frustration is targetted at the company from whom you wish to purchase an otherwise very satisfactory computer. This is only enhanced when you realise that by irritating you, you end up giving them more of your money as you are 'forced' to purchase a much higher spec machine

The only other graphics intensive applications are the 3d design programs - and 3d designers use Pmacs that can be upgraded with whatever graphics that they want.

From a more general perspective, it will also be interesting to see where things like Core Image go - shifting processing from CPU to GPU is not the sole preserve of games as the new Final Cut release suggests. I am not into video editing, so facts might not be 100% here, and I am happy to wait and see exactly what CI and its the API (I am also not an ADC subscriber) offer but I suspect its functionality could prove useful, (i.e. theoretically it can and has been done but we will have to wait and see what is actually released at this stage) in a whole host of mathematical processing tasks such as audio and signal processing.

A marginal increase in price (better GPU) could yeild significant returns in performance for many home versions of the same programmes, such as the ubiquitous home video, photo editing and audio, where Apple distinguishes itself to my mind in making advanced features accessible to home and non-technical users and, importantly, also to programmers - one of the things that has impressed me with Apple is the ease with which one can include optimised libraries into projects.

The irony is that a £500-ish PC (self build, £1000 bought with monitor) can offer a massive increase in such power but there is very little software widely available (or advertised), unless you code it yourself, that will actually efficiently harness it ... apart from games, of course

Apple are positioning themselves at the forefront of leveraging the processing units of a computer from a software point of view yet seem to sell themselves slightly short when it comes to choice of hardware, especially when said hardware often has a lifetime usually longer that of a comparable PC.

 

[Demon Hunter]

Thanks for this thread. It has mirrored some of my thoughts over the last two weeks or so and it's reassuring to know similar frustrations are felt elsewhere.

I'm glad you think so too.

So wheres the problem in the current line of graphics? My Snow ibook seems to run most games just fine

Not sure what games you are playing, LOL...

The 5200FX gets 100 FPS in Pong... clearly a high performer.

 

[Mechcozmo]

The 5200FX gets 100 FPS in Pong... clearly a high performer.

I get many 1,000s of FPS when emulating Win98 in DOS mode and playing games.

 

[ibilly]

Seriously...

Does anybody have any OBJECTIVE info on the chipsets???? I have a rev A 12"er, and the graphics suck. It isn't that bad driving an external 17" display, but once you get photoshop onto there, it's a little clunky. This is of course with the 32 MB of vRAM. Forget games (trust me, I've tried).

Here's my take on several assorted topics
Widescreens vs. standard: THEY'RE NOT FOR DVDs!!!! There's still a black border on top and bottom–they're not the 16:9 format. They're INCREDIBLY usefil for things like photoshop, and word, and internet, and IM. You have your content window (Photo, text document, internet window) and a sidebar (p'Shop pallates, Formatting pallates, iChat windows/buddy list). This is an incredibly convineant and efficient layout which I envy greatly with my 12" 4:3 glory. The screen is incerdibly sharp and good (except in daylight. I'm a littel disappointed there), but it seems that a widescreen would need a longer bulb at the bottom, which would logically draw more power form the battery...

13.3": I think it would mean about 12" on either side of the keyboard. This simply stretched design would be a great compromise between distinctions between the lines, portability, and widescreened glory (see previous paragraph)

Cards/Moboards: Apple needs to redo the mother boards. Make the graphics and/or cpu swappable. This would not maen significant height increases, would make BTO options cheapre and more copious, and (maybee not so positive for apple) extend the potential life of the books. The graphics cards need to go on a bit of a 'roid rage and get pumped up. Honeestly, they're insufficient. With Tiger's heavy future draw, actual gaming, photoshop (i think that this draws on the GPU more than CPU). Make 128Mb standard, upgrade the nVidia, and have 256 as an option on all of them. Also, 512MB souldered onto the Motherboard(s of differently sized models), if they choose that design, would be most excellent. No chip loitering uselessly in the expansion slot, and more awesomeness.

Once again, performance figs, please and sorry for the rambling

 

[Demon Hunter]

Once again, performance figs, please and sorry for the rambling

Rambling? Keep on preachin' the word, brotha!!

 

[ddtlm]

ibilly:

Does anybody have any OBJECTIVE info on the chipsets?

As far as I know all anyone has is game benchmarks. I maintain that those aren't going to mean much for OSX desktopping performance, where pretty much anything should be "fast enough" until you run out of VRAM.

Apple needs to redo the mother boards. ... The graphics cards need to go on a bit of a 'roid rage and get pumped up.

So... you're demanding more complex motherboards, more options (more models to manage), more graphics RAM, faster graphics chips, and more RAM on the motherboard... anything else you'd like to add?

Apple is profitable because they don't do that stuff, because they stick to what will benefit them. While I'm sure you'll be quick to insist that all of that would benefit them, people with actual knowledge of what sells at what prices, what component costs are, and how expensive R&D is have decided not to do those things. They are not remaining profitable in a crowded marketplace by accident. They remain profitable because they save that $1 here, that $1 there. Sell a million machines and it adds up.

Now, I'll agree that 64M of graphics RAM in a machine that can drive a 20" or 23" monitor is a bit cheap of them. I'd like to see 128M an option, at least. But as a whole, I think Apple does a good job and its foolish to demand sweeping changes.

 

[elva]

13 INCH pbook would be awesome

I think a 13 inch powerbook would be nice I would buy one .. Then it would force people who wanted a 12" screen to buy and ibook.. BUT I ALSO love the 12" pbook I have been thinking about buying one, I like how they are thinner then the iBOOK and can drive my 20" apple display. I dunno I am sure apple has something up there sleeve and is working on the powerbook line.. and give the g5 a rest..... half of the people just want it for the name ... think about it you will be like all those widnows people that have the latest fastest(granted they update them more it seems) intel or amd chip for playing Card games but instead you will be using the g5 for email and web browsing.





Powerbook 15" 1.25ghz 1 gig ram superdrive
imac 1ghz 256ram combo drive 15" 40 gig ipod 512mb shuffle 20"apple display

 

[ddtlm]

elva:

and give the g5 a rest..... half of the people just want it for the name

Perhaps, but I'm sure you'd agree that something has to be done about the slow increase in processor performance.

Sidetrack: so I was just wondering what the worst CPU/FSB ratio in recent times as been, and I remembered Intel's "delightful" 766mhz Celeron on a 66mhz FSB (a 11.5x multiplier), with only 128k L2. This is actually a much worse situation than the G4's 1.67ghz on 167mhz FSB (10.0x multiplier) with 512k L2. (Of course demand on the FSB comes from performance and not clockspeed, so perhaps the G4 is worse off than it appears.) Anyway, Anandtech has an acticle that explores what a 100mhz FSB did for the Celeron, if anyone feels like comparing that to the G4's situation:

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=1393&p=1

Its interesting to compare a 566mhz/66mhz Celery to 766mhz/66mhz and 800mhz/100mhz models. The 566->766 performance boost is often less than the 766mhz->800mhz boost.