Who needs a Powerbook G5 anyway?

Discussion in 'Macintosh Computers' started by Fredstar, Jan 31, 2005.

  1. Fredstar macrumors 6502a


    Nov 3, 2004
    Near London
    Seriously. What is the point of one if the consequences are:
    1)Seriously hot laptop (!!!)
    2)Terrible battery life (2 hours :()
    3)Might have to make it thicker and heavier
    4)Maybe even a complete re-think of the aluminium enclosure.

    Most of these both are big consequences in having a prized G5 in a Powerbook and tbh it is not worth it. Who really 'needs' one?
    The fact is very few need that kind of processor on the move - that is what Desktops are for. What i think the biggest thing Apple SHOULD do instead of concentrating on processor speed (i think G4 1.5-1.67 ghz is more than fast enough for everything) is concentrate on battery power. The fact is that the 4-5 hours (most) of battery life is not enough for actual work on the move, lets be honest.
    Wouldn't you all love to see a 10-odd-hour battery life Powerbook instead of a G5?

    Think about it. Apple could introduce the laptop with the longest battery life and it would sell so well.

    How? Not exactly sure but i am sure the next generation lithium type battery is due or whatever. I am sure the Apple techies could solve this instead of concentrating all their efforts on fitting a G5 in that small enclosure. Maybe making a super efficient G4 or something
  2. Bear macrumors G3

    Jul 23, 2002
    Sol III - Terra
    Added to that....

    A G4 and a G5 at the same processor speed and having 2GB of RAM maximum will only have perfromance differences on applications that are memory intensive due to the differing bus speeds.

    So, I'd rather see Apple go towards a dual core G4 proc and also increase battery life (by increasing its capacity) for the PowerBook line.
  3. Koodauw macrumors 68040


    Nov 17, 2003
    I would too.

    You make a good point about some of the draw backs that the G5 has right now. I think most people are assuming that these issues will be worked out by the time any G5 PB hit the shelves.

    While many people may not need the G5's power, the real question is "Who wants to invest anywhere from $1,500-$3,000+ on a computer that won't be support as long as the G5.
  4. mrgreen4242 macrumors 601


    Feb 10, 2004
    Well, I for one would be interested in a 12" G5 PB that ran at, say, 1.2ghz/600mhz FSB... Ya, ya, I know it'd be slower than the current 1.5ghz G4's in some tasks, but I'd like it because, and this is just a guess, of the very things you mentioned: power and heat.

    The 1.6ghz iMac doesn't draw all that much power or make all that much heat, for a desktop machine. Lower the power/heat output with better manufacturing and lower clock speeds and you may get something with good power, low heat, and long battery life. Maybe I'm wrong, but you'd think that'd be doable.

    I'm picking the G5 here because the faster FSB SHOULD help it compete against higher clocked G4 laptops for performance, while hopefully making gains in the battery life and heat depts.

  5. Fredstar thread starter macrumors 6502a


    Nov 3, 2004
    Near London
    The whole point i am making is that the g4's are great processors for everyone's portability needs atm. The FSB increase will not justify a drop of speed, but that is just a guess really. There is obviously a trade off between speed and battery life in laptops, i think the G4 1.5/67 ghz laptops are enough to do tasks reasonably quickly and Apple's concentration, imo, should go in developing longer batteries.
    If they could make the G4 even more efficient and introduce a new battery life i know a lot of people would appreciate the extra benefit running at highest processor speeds and not having to worry about running out of battery that much.
    I reckon even a G5 running at lower speeds would use more wattage
  6. atari1356 macrumors 68000


    Feb 27, 2004
    A lot of people, myself included, just have one computer... and they want both portability and power. I use my PowerBook with the lid closed as a desktop computer most of the time - so, while I might not need a ton of power on the road, I do need it when tied to my desk doing work. So the idea of having a G5 laptop is very appealing (assuming Apple could make it run without getting too hot, or by making it bigger than the current PowerBooks)... and I agree that a dual core G4 could be nice as well.

    Of course, having said that, my current PowerBook is fast enough for everything I do now. I just wish it was a bit quicker when playing World of Warcraft. ;)
  7. bertagert macrumors 6502

    Jan 13, 2003
    Same boat here. However, a G4 is very comparable to a G5 in the speed department. The only reason we would see a G5 in a PB is becuase Freescale didn't get its stuff together and can't produce upgraded chips on a regular basis.

    Other than that, bring on the Freescale chips. All Apple will have to do is give the processor a new name besides G4. If the Freescale performs great...I'm all for it.
  8. Bear macrumors G3

    Jul 23, 2002
    Sol III - Terra
    How about G4+ or G4D for a dual core? or even G4 Extreme ? :D
  9. spaceballl macrumors 68030


    Nov 2, 2003
    San Francisco, CA
    "Who needs a Powerbook G5 anyway?"
    -Those who require the power of a G5 on the road.

    Cleary, by your post, you don't need one... Then again, nobody NEEDS a powerbook when they can have an iBook.
  10. AmigoMac macrumors 68020


    Aug 5, 2003
    Say it stronger and harder... who needs a mac? :rolleyes: :D

    I'm happy with my iBook G4 but on the line for a PB G5 ;), but give me a Dual Core G4 and it will be with me for the next 3 years...

    G5 Paris anyone?? :)

    For the original poster: You write like if you were behind apple doors... I hope you aren't because you're in troubles ;) ...

    Who needs... ? Who needs...? Look at ebay and ask about the crappy things there... there you find the biggest "Who needs...?"

    Next! :D
  11. iostream.h macrumors regular

    Mar 4, 2004
    Albuquerque, NM
  12. jayscheuerle macrumors 68020


    Seems to me that in order to make a useable laptop with a G5 that met Apple's standards of design, they'd have to have a severely crippled, mobile version of the chip that may say G5 on it, but would be little faster than the G4.

    It would NOT be as fast as a G5 desktop. Not even close.
  13. stcanard macrumors 65816


    Oct 19, 2003
    I'd be curious. Aside from FSB, what specifically would you run on the road that would perform that much better on a 1.67GHz G5 than on a 1.67GHz G4?
  14. jackieonasses macrumors 6502a


    Mar 3, 2004
    the great OKLAHOMA....
    At this time if they had a 1.67 G5 vs. the 1.67 G4 (minus the bus) The G4 would win (because of Altivec) Now, when more 64bit apps are introduced, the G5's lead will be much greater.

    If you gave the dual-core G4's a nice bus, then i don't see why the dual-core could not be faster than a *notebook* replacement G5. The only thing different is the name. And shoppers will see the G5 and think that is much better.

  15. Alte22a macrumors 6502

    Feb 25, 2003
    back in London
    When I bought my 486DX back in the days, it was seriously fast. The shop keeper said why do you want such a fast machine? It nearly died trying to run windoze 95.

    My dual G4 500 was apparently a fast machine "when" bought it. Its not bad after a few recent upgrades, panther runs fine. but video editing on it its such a chore. the same story goes for my aging Ti book.

    These machines are perfectly fine for emails and stuff. but as soon as software tech progresses, the hard ware needs to keep up, thats if you want to use the latest hard ware or "need" to use the latest hard ware. If I am just emailing and forum chatting I think I wouldnt ever need to upgrade.
  16. wide macrumors 6502a

    May 17, 2004
    If Apple released a PowerBook G5, it would HAVE to be thin and light and it would need great battery life. Apple would not release a product that would be otherwise. Also, the aluminum structure is two years old now (?..correct me if I am wrong). While I do like the current casing, a new, more innovative design would be cool.

    Who would need a PowerBook G5? Someone who wants power, who wants 64-bit (and needs portability), and someone, like me (and many other people), who want the best bang for their buck. The current G4s cannot compare to the Dothan processors. I do not think the G5s can either in 32-bit applications, but with a 64-bit operating system it would blow Dothan away.
  17. Bear macrumors G3

    Jul 23, 2002
    Sol III - Terra
    The G5 has the Altivec instruction set, so this isn't a factor.

    Well G4=32bit, G5=64bit. Which is why G4Extreme might be a good name to use (as much as it makes some of us cringe).
  18. nutmac macrumors 68040

    Mar 30, 2004
    If Freescale or IBM can design and supply CPUs competitive with Intel's Pentium M (both in terms of power draw and performance), Apple can reward it with G6 designation for all I care.

    The fact remains, G4 is not a great chip (in comparison to Pentium M) and G5 is not yet a mobile chip. Praise G4 all you want, it still performs at only about half the level (if at that) of Pentium M and it draws more power. 7448 may change that, but Freescale has yet to delivered it.

    And it's not fair to cast a judgment on G5 until IBM shows and demonstrates its long promised mobile version of 970 (little information of it is known, other than IBM's delivery goal of "sometime in 2005"). Although G5 may not outperform G4 clock-per-clock when running G4 application (just like G4 to G3 when running non-Altivec application), more applications will be optimized for G5 in the future and it would be nice if Apple can migrate PowerBook platform to G5 (provided it can be squeezed in without significant compromises).

    I've learned a long ago not to trust Motorola, so I remain skeptical whether Freescale can deliver e600 meeting all the hypes it promised. Motorola shipped 1.42 GHz G4 about 2 years ago. Today, we are at 1.67 GHz. That is not much of a progress. FSB is still stuck at pathetic 167 MHz.

    Regardless, I am hopeful that Apple will pick one (either e600 or mobile 970) that deserves to be in next generation PowerBook enclosure.
  19. darkwing macrumors 65816

    Jan 6, 2004
    G4^2 (G4 squared) :)

  20. Abstract macrumors Penryn


    Dec 27, 2002
    Location Location Location
    I agree with this statement, but its funny how all these "power" users who demand more power on the road request a G5 PB when a G4 at the same clock speed is faster at the moment. Yes, "if" the operating system was 64-bit, and "when" new 64-bit software comes out, the G5 will be faster, but for now, if you were to buy a G5 PB, it would be quite slow. So you're asking for a slower computer to do all those tasks where you need power.

    I don't think 64-bit will be prevalent until 2 years from now when Intel and AMD and Apple all start selling 64-bit desktops exclusively, so even if they released a G5 PB, I don't think I'd want to upgrade from my 1GHz PB with 1.25 GB of RAM. It would probably be the same speed.

    If you want power TODAY, a dual-core G4 (aka: G5-M) Powerbook would be great. It would be powerful AND give us better battery life.

    And the reason Apple won't give us laptops with better battery life is because larger batteries would make our laptops heavier, and Apple probably wouldn't do that. They also wouldn't make a 1.3" laptop (for example) to accomodate a G5 because that means their laptops just got thicker, but I'm sure they could accomplish both if they wanted to. :)
  21. Abstract macrumors Penryn


    Dec 27, 2002
    Location Location Location
    The G5 is about the same right now, and in the next year or so. In 2 years, more than half of software might be 64-bit, but that will only happen when G5s are in both the PM, iMac, PB, and either IN the iBooks, or coming soon to the iBooks. Otherwise, there won't be enough of a market for software manufacturers to bother. Until that day comes, G5s aren't so much better than G4s, and this may be the reality for a couple of years.

Share This Page